[meteorite-list] H2900 Eucrite

From: Adam Hupe <adamhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:32:56 2004
Message-ID: <013001c416b4$77fb51a0$ad971018_at_attbi.com>

Dear Dean and List Members,

Dean, we posted the comparison picture of NWA 1929-Howardite and the new
Polymict Eucrite (H2900) because a List member suggested your new Eucrite
was paired to the Howardite. Look back in the thread to see the post. We did
this so collectors would not think they were buying a Howardite paired to
NWA 1929 when in fact they were buying a Eucrite.

In your original AD posting, you alluded that your new stone may be Lunar by
writing that a nomad said it was lunar. This is not doing collectors
justice. This is definitely where it is prudent to get at least an initial
lab analysis. Speaking of labs, we pay for just about all of the
classification work ourselves since the labs and scientists we work with do
not get grant money. No tax payers dollars are used in our classification
work. We, of course, submit the proper type samples as required. This is how
we are able to get classifications done quickly if we choose to prioritize.

Dean, you did the same thing with Bensour. You advertised to the list that
you, "...had a new Achondrite for sale that showed up in your latest
shipment from Morocco." We informed you privately that it was a new fall and
that it was not an Achondrite but an "LL" and that you should wait to sell
any as your customers would be upset if they did not get an Achondrite. We
said that we would have lab results in two days but you took this as an
opportunity to go straight to eBay the next day ahead of classification and
announced a "New Fall". We were helping you to not look incompetent and this
is how we are repaid.

I agree with everything Rob pointed out. He points out that you go against
everything you claim to be "...a meteorite dealer
who you know that you can trust." If you were so trustworthy and were
concerned for collectors, you would not write something might be one thing
when, in fact, you knew it was something else. We saw the material you are
selling from your partner in Morocco. We were only interested in the main
mass so we left the ~1 kilo stone behind that you are now selling. You sent
an image to Adam asking what it was and he told you it was a Eucrite before
you began selling it. To say it might be Lunar is misleading and
irresponsible. Why get collector's hopes up when you knew it was just a
Eucrite? This just shows your lack of respect for collectors, dealer's
advice and science alike.

Best regards,

Greg Hupe
The Hupe Collection
IMCA 2185
Received on Tue 30 Mar 2004 07:09:42 PM PST