[meteorite-list] Re: Fwd: Re: Question for seller -- Item #2175659927

From: Steve Schoner <steve_schoner_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:25:42 2004
Message-ID: <20030521211851.60421.qmail_at_web12702.mail.yahoo.com>

Paul,

Very well said, and I was thinking along the same
lines, but had some difficulty (due to my recent
hospital stay) coming up with the right words.

What I have done is not to return any specimens that I
recieve. I state clearly that the pieces sent are, or
are not meteorites via e-mail.

Out of the thousands that I have recieved, only three
turned out to be meteorites.

I will from this time forward, catalog the extremely
rare legit meteorite samples with the names and
addresses of the senders. And in communcation with
the senders have the physical description of the piece
that I recieved, and or a photograph of it returned
with my reply.

Those deemed not to be meteorites will be kept for no
less than six months then discarded. But the
meteorites retained will be kept with the information,
and the recommendations for further testing.

One very astute dealer that I know reminded me that I
should never give out identification labels without
having filled them out fully, listing the specimen
weight and description.

This would minimize the label being used for something
that is not a meteorite, putting the person that
initially made the label at risk.

But with regards to the auction in question.... I have
never seen a Canyon Diablo so obviously off such as
this one.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2175659927

Something is very strange in this picture.

Like a Canyon Diablo meteorite with papers of
authenticity, but seeing an obvious slag instead.
Just look at the pictures of the pieces...

Looks like a duck...

Walks like a duck...

Is a...

Steve Schoner/AMS
http://www.geocities.com/meteorite_identification


--- LITIG8NSHARK_at_aol.com wrote:
> Good afternoon Folks,
>
> As Steve rightly alludes to, any of us who provide
> written analysis findings
> or, for that matter, certificates of authenticity,
> run the risk that these
> documents may be used either negligently or
> fraudulently by a holder of the
> document down the line.
>
> Unfortunately, in the present circumstance, the
> entire document is not
> photographed for display. We just don't know
> whether it describes the
> specimen which was examined and which the document
> purports to authenticate.
>
>
> Anyone wishing to perpetrate a fraud can take a
> valid analysis document or
> COA and then pair it with a meteorwrong. Another
> somewhat less nefarious
> situation might arise when only one or two samples
> out of a group are
> submitted for authentication and the holder then
> either wrongly presumes, or
> in an attempt to deceive, holds out the document as
> applying to an entire
> group of specimens.
>
> It follows that any analysis document or COA must,
> with specificity, describe
> the specimen analyzed, and at minimum include its
> macroscopic physical
> characteristics such as mass and dimensions. An
> additional safety measure
> for the producer of the document would be to
> incorporate a photo or photos of
> the specimen in the document.
>
> Failure to take these basic precautions potentially
> leaves one open to
> questions, allegations and a possible civil suit
> (winnable or not) that
> ultimately will impact the producer of the document.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paul
>
> In a message dated 5/21/2003 4:17:37 PM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> steve_schoner_at_yahoo.com writes:
>
> > It alarming to me, as it uses a letter from an
> > standing IMCA member to "authenticate" items that
> are
> > clearly, from the photos shown, NOT Canyon Diablo
> > meteorites. The seller even posts the
> authentication
> > letter in the auction picture pages.
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Received on Wed 21 May 2003 05:18:51 PM PDT