FACTORS IN THE EXCHANGE VALUE OF 

 METEORITES.^ 



By warren M. FOOTE. 



(Received April 2S, 1913) 



Historical. — For many years an acceptable standard of meteorite 

 values has been sought by students and investigators in this branch 

 of geology, as well as by those museums or individuals who aim to 

 complete the great collections. While the supply of one locality or 

 fall is often known to the fraction of a gram, its institutional 

 owner's reluctance to exchange may not be measured by any known 

 formula. It is then most natural that negotiations frequently pro- 



1 Since values are not settled by individual, but by collective opinion, an 

 outline of this article was submitted to several active exchangers. The 

 curator of one of the two greatest meteorite collections warmly commends 

 the effort to determine exchange values from new viewpoints. He expresses 

 the belief that museums in general will utilize the work, and will welcome 

 the elaboration of any detailed system which affords a standard of value for 

 meteorite exchanges. 



Professor E. A. Wiilfing writes : 



"Your article on the factors which determine the exchange value of 

 meteorites interested me very much. ... In my consideration of the matter 

 in 1897, I did not think primarily of market prices, but of exchanges between 

 the large museum stocks, which I thought was not wholly impossible. The 

 purchase price was only considered by me in so far as it influenced the choice 

 between the formulae Wi, W2 and ff't. Your second factor, 'weight of 

 specimen offered,' could not influence me, since there seemed to be much too 

 little of what was offered in 1897, in comparison with the large museum- 

 masses to be dislodged. . . . But these were all factors which it was impos- 

 sible to consider in 1897; likewise the 'area of slice' had to be set aside, 

 otherwise the problem of clearing away the endless confusion in the price 

 question would have grown still more insoluble. 



" I would say therefore, that in quite properly criticizing the formula, 

 . . . the conditions which produced it, and which only could have produced 

 it, should be considered. ... I believe that you have undertaken this [exten- 

 sion of the formula] in the right way and I wish to express the hope that 

 you may succeed in further distributing meteorite masses and thereby advance 

 their study." 



516 



