[meteorite-list] Matteo's Challenge Answered(was India #2)

From: Mark Ferguson <mafer_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:28:25 2004
Message-ID: <004701c39024$721f9280$6701a8c0_at_vs.shawcable.net>

Hi Steve and List

Steve, I am surely not trying to start an arguement, and all people on the
list respect your opinions, but I would like to address and question your
comments.

> How do you know, other than the reputation of the
> seller behind it?
Isn't this exactly what the IMCA is trying to establish, authenticity of
meteorites sold and traded and the reputation of its members?

> It is not just an issue with Matteo, but ANY one that
> sells such specks.
So, if someone cuts a specimen for whatever reason, the crumbs from cutting
should be tossed because you don't feel they can be authenticated to your
satisfaction. The fact that the person cutting it and selling the crumbs
makes no difference to you because that person isn't trustworthy and has no
reputation.

> To determine the authenticy of such one would have to
> destroy the specimen.
I think this is not the case any longer with the ion probe, but then, I'm
not a scientist, I just have graduated with my undergrad degree. I do know,
personally, that non-destructive testing can be done on larger pieces in XRF
as long as a relatively flat surface is available and that non destructive
analysis by XRD is possible using a few grains and vasiline, and these tests
provide a fair representation of the results obtained using the destructive
tests, and that they are using an ion probe to analyse extremely small
particles of cosmic dust, again, non-destrucively I believe, but they don't
elaborate on technics, they just publish data and pictures.

> And even then, questions might remain.
This is true, but it also used to be that measurements between mass
spectrometers on the same material would result in differing values. This
was a fact at least until the 1980's and may still hold to some extent that
no two machines will yield the same results. So, what are you saying then?
That unless an analysis is done on a machine, you won't believe it? So,
then, maybe you can explain NWA 869 and UCLA's attempts to classify it, and
how you would deal with such inconclusiveness.

> So, my prefrence is that I will not buy any such
> specks and if I do only in the form of legit thin
> sections so that the minerology of such can be
> confirmed via optical and or microprobe means.

So, thats your choice and you have the means to purchase what I cannot.
So, I have a collection of specks that I believe are what the sellers says
they are. And I sell the extra to fund my collection. I have no other means
to purchase these exotic and hard to get meteorites.

What Matteo does is his, and those that deal with him, business. Don't
impose his practices upon others for it implies that if one meteorite
dealer/collector does something, then all must do that. And I'm sure that
your not saying that because Matteo does some things, and people have issue
with him over it, that all dealers or collectors are the same way. But, it
sure sounds that way.
>
> Steve Schoner/ams
>
>
Mark
Received on Sat 11 Oct 2003 02:21:07 PM PDT