[meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion

[Michael L Blood]

Hi Martin,
        To me, the important question is how much of this material is
The same fall. 
        Michael

on 3/23/08 4:41 PM, Martin Altmann at altmann at meteorite-martin.de wrote:


> In fact, there is also an inconsistency in the last Catalogue of Meteorites

> itself.

> In the header of the entry the tkw of Chiang Khan is listed as 367g

> but in the distribution of the specimens in the same entry are listed pieces

> in a total weight of 3279grams.  (Largest amount at UCLA with 2588.4g there,

> and the piece of 800g in the University of Bangkok isn't mentioned).

> So together with the Ex-Haag-piece and Oliver's finds - he's moving at the

> moment, will ask him as soon as he has an Internet access again, how many

> grams in total - we have at least 6kg.

> 

> Best!

> Martin

> 

> 

> 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com

> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Michael

> L Blood

> Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25

> An: dave at fallingrocks.com; mmorgan at mhmeteorites.com; Martin Altmann;

> Meteorite List

> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion

> 

> Hi Dave & all,

>         Regarding your post below....

>         My information regarding TKW  of the Chiang-Khan fall is from

> The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann:

> 

> http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html

> 

>         Of particular interest is the comment therein:

> 

> " Nobody was able  anymore to give precise indications as to the exact date

> of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of

> November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the

> strewn field.

> Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second

> meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent

> research (isotope analysis), the two large  specimens, which are in private

> Collection and in Chulalongkorn University,  Bangkok, do not originate from

> the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have  been transported into

> Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were  analyzed, one is H4

> tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large

> pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens

> differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces!"

> 

>         Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff

> Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM

> To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan

> 

> "The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish

> announcements of new masses when they are

> significant.  Submit the report to the

> editor.  You will need good evidence that the

> additional mass is really part of same fall."

> 

>         Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob

> Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the

> Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against

> The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this).

>         I recognized your reference of source for purchase as "a dealer" was

> Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans

> In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully aware

> Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the

> Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in  their assessment of related falls,

> just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on the

> part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity of

> the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to

> decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with the

> primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve this

> without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria

> cluster.... Er... controversy .... will not be conclusive if this (other?)

> fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan

> fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such.

>         Sincerely, Michael Blood

> 

> 

> on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at dave at fallingrocks.com wrote:

> 

>> Matt & List,

>> 

>> First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific

>> specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb.

>> 

>> This prompts a second question, which is "Why is there not a means to

>> 'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a

>> dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal classification

> has

>> cleared?"  I'm not talking about confusion in the early stages of mining a

>> strewn field, but rather about falls and/or finds where in many cases

>> decades have passed since the initial discoveries and, for all intents and

>> purposes, everything that will ever be found has been found (a slippery

>> slope of a generalization, but hopefully this makes sense).  There are

> many,

>> many such examples, and I'll post a link to only one below (read Remarks

> in

>> my Djermaia listing):

>> 

>> http://www.fallingrocks.com/Collections/Djermaia.htm

>> 

>> I purchased my Chiang-Khan from a dealer without much research, which was

>> completely my responsibility, to be clear.  That said, it was marketed as

>> representing something approaching 5% of the recovered material from that

>> fall (which, again, is officially recorded as 367 grams when we know that

>> there is one stone of almost twice that size and speculation on the list

> is

>> that the TKW is actually likely to be near 7 kilograms).  We had some

> banter

>> about the finer points of orientation a couple of weeks ago and how that

> has

>> an impact in the marketplace, and it seems to me that this is at least as

>> large an issue.  And, forgetting the market altogether, shouldn't there

>> perhaps be a more focused effort to "get the record straight" for the

>> benefit of history?  I'm probably missing something out of ignorance

> here...

>> 

>> Thanks in advance for thoughts and comments...always trying to learn

>> something new.

>> 

>> Dave

> 

> 

> ______________________________________________

> http://www.meteoritecentral.com

> Meteorite-list mailing list

> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

> 

> ______________________________________________

> http://www.meteoritecentral.com

> Meteorite-list mailing list

> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list