[meteorite-list] Re: NWA's, 'Dealer's', Science, NomCom

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Nov 25 18:00:28 2004
Message-ID: <72F321EB.4DE07030.0BFED528_at_aol.com>

Hola List, Apparently my reply to John yesterday didn't make it, while the thread has been taken up by others. I disagree with Jeff in the details, who has decided for whatever reason that it indeed is impractical to separate successive specimen division on a simple piece of paper everytime a meteorite is cut for the reasons outlined in my reply to John yesterday below. That seems a purist opinion concerned about the integrity of the system and someone maintaining hermetic databases to me.

He also shoots down the idea using the argument that large complex falls would be unwieldy - and convenienty ignores:) that better than 90% of the meteorites - and perhaps a higher ratio of the costly ones would be very amenable to this. The JSC system he kindly clarified (JSC controls and only assigns number series internally) clearly does not extend per Jeff's explanation - unless a classifying researcher makes the non-commercial classification card due to commercial interests trumping scientific ones.

Never-the-less, I wholeheartedly welcome his suggestion as better vs. the option of doing nothing. To the nice people who want chain of custody cards and have suggested this in the past, my meteoritic heart is with you (and if it happened I'm all yours) but my head says insisting on that will be counterproductive and devisive in general since it goes against the grain of commercialization - anonomity is a necessary component and yes it can become untraceable to a researcher. The comma cutting system (Cut, Copy, Comma, Card) is really so simple, what you photocopy the non-commercial card and put a comma and sub-piece number along with the weight. But you discount one point if you insist that a simple non-commercial annotation on a copy of the specimen card doesn't serve a valuable purpose. When someone cheats it will become obvious pretty quickly. We have all seen that. The comma system is a chain of cutsidy (not custody, but cuts) less the owners' names and who said that we can't be one up on JSC by re
laxing their impeccable quality control.

Below is my yesterday reply to John:

Hola John,

Thanks kindly for the courteous acknowledgement. Let me also acknowledge that I think I treated your post a bit to harshly as you bring up some points that can't be swept under the carpet so nonchalantly. Your emails are the ones I probably like the least since you seem to have a knack for making good points that are easier not to deal with in my own meteorite fantasy world. I do firmly believe all of the sensible interested parties among us could work this out and strike up a plurally great compromise that works. Let me "surgically" suggest answers to your comments, by cutting up your post into the points well made:

En un mensaje con fecha 11/24/2004 4:13:44 PM Mexico Standard Time, birdsell_at_email.arizona.edu escribe:

J-Hi Doug and thanks for the interesting idea. I suppose that could work if every dealer kept perfect records of every piece, slice, part slice, and part, part slice that they ever bought or sold.

D-Certainly agree with you there. But...does it really require the impeccable innumerable records you hint, if you allow me to read between the lines?

J-The question then would be, who would be the "Meteorite Auditors" to track down the few offending dealers that may decide to "fake" a meteorite ID number, say NWA 123,9,25,3,2 and track it through all the hands that is has passed and sub-divisions that it has been cut into to "verify" that it is really NWA 123,9,25,3,2?

D-Good point. I don't see the absolute need for said auditors. So does that automatically mean that what I suggest is useless, if I may indulge myself read between the lines?

D-(Maybe the IMCA would like something else to do this auditing you propose but that doesn't seem too relevant to this point at this time to me. It would probably muddy the real issues here more than anything else.)

D-You remind me here, further reading between the lines, that "Trust" does have an important place in this and most messes. How many cases have we seen in public (list) where someone directly has lied about where they got material from and put false numbers on it? Mind this, I am not saying claimed possible pairing, I am saying says it is fragment #A. This is a giant leap for meteoritekind if I may say.


J-What happens if someone along the chain of custody accidentally transposed the 3 and the 2 in the ID number, and this got passed down the line?

D- Oh, I don't know, put the offender in front of a firing squad might work. I think you have probably missed and I probably not well explained my "practical" idea here. A submits meteorite for classification to Researcher #1. A then sells the third rock to B who cuts it into 9 pieces. NWA 123,3,1 through NWA 123,3,9. There is only one Meteorite card made per piece classified for NWA 123 made by the researcher. B gets a that MetSoc card which says NWA 123,3 wt. 90 grams. This is such a minor detail and so close to what is currently done that I can't see a valid argument against it. Plus ... Here is the chance for the Meteoritical Society to build a database of the entire set of pieces classified in numerical order with no dealer markings in the image. What an easy database. See ...there's your stone, number 3, third from the left. How many collecters, institutions, etc, now have the benefit of seeing a photo of their uncut stone? On the web...hey can you see which part my end piece NWA 123,3,5 cam
e from!!

D-Now I am C, as I bought NWA 123,3,5 from B, the retail dealer. I bring it to Chicago and it breaks in half. The I give them both away. At that time I just photocopy the Met Soc card and put NWA 123,3,5,1 6.0 grams and NWA 123,5,2 4.0 grams on the other one. That is really what we are doing anyway, making two cards and passing them along. Mistakes can happen but I'd be pretty dense in this practical case to make one since I now have two pieces. And then I don't put my name on the new card. I can send a duplicate card if I wish as many good collectors do currently now anyway.


J-Some end recipient could then be accused by the Meteorite Auditors of "faking" the piece after an audit exposed the problem.
D- John, this BS will always be around to some degree. I am not proposing a panacea, just a bit of continuous improvement that can benefit us all. At the end of the day I would so so much love my collection with those classification cards.

J-Who is going to spend their time trying to resolve this inevitable issues?
D-Matteo, IMCA, a very tiny negligable bit of you and me.

J-I can just see our friends on the Meteorite-List bickering over whether they have proper claim to NWA 123,9,25, 3,2 or NWA 123,9,25,2,3!

D-Sure, let 'em bicker John. Meanwhile I be looking at my 50 next specimens with classification cards and whatever dealer duplicates I was sent in total, awe. And even if the Met Soc didn't do anything with images, at least Dealer A could have passed it along with the initial wholesale sale sans his name. Wow, do I crave as an unbiased innocent that kind of material for my collection instead of chips and crumbs that may be from Zeus-Amon's bellybutton, for all I know.


D- Finally, John, that beautiful new small iron you now have for sale. Why not give everyone an electronic image of the whole iron, then you could even send an image of the sectioned iron with their purchase and number the fragments (without your logo)? How much work is that? I think you are practically doing it anyway if I looki at the website!A tiny added bit of value a "dealer" can do to really earn their value and benefit sxience. I challange you to do a test run on this perfectly simple textbook case in your hands and please let us know:)

D-The only paperwork I see for the dealer that is additional is putting the fragment number along with the weight. Of course some will moan and groan, but think of us studious collecters and how much you mean to us for your extra pen or keyboard stroke! And then think of the science potential in a say to mention a recent list example mapping the distribution of diogenite generally through a HOW/EUC.

D-And an additional comment, I think we will just see a self selection of less repudables gravitate out of this and into generic sales for the same stone...which is ok or not sepending on how you ask, but the market me and you, etc., will put the premiums where they belong and safeguard everyones interest. Dean will still be moving tons, and Bob Evans will likely have some good stiff to sell whatever it is called, and the Met list will be as picante as usual with the exception of all collectors large and small feeling like NASA with their own neutral original research cards, right next to their favorite dealer's duplicate...

The way I see this, we need to address all the following in our happy evolution and even coexist with a few Neanderthals:)
1.Preserve the actual classification work
2.Add Scientific Value
3.Do not name prior dealers or hunters unless desired
4.Protect business interests
5.Have a wonderful illustrated collection

With essentially no added work.

Saludos, Doug
Cheers
-John
Received on Thu 25 Nov 2004 06:00:23 PM PST