[meteorite-list] NWA 1110 issues

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Sep 9 13:39:38 2004
Message-ID: <21238489.6F45EE3F.0BFED528_at_aol.com>

Have I missed something here? I find a rock here in Mexico
which I suspect to be a meteorite, and the same Bob looks at
the image I posted and says it is probably paired with the
rocks on Lake Michigan in his back yard, and just because I
felt like slapping him upside the head for his comment doesn't
mean he was wrong.

This reminds me of a meteorite (I forgot which one, anyone
remember?) that a guy found I think jogging down the road, on
the asphalt, which he knew wasn't there the prior day when his
did his routine. It might have still been cold. So the
NomCom only called it a find, because the Mafia could have
thrown it there. Never mind that it was just a little bit
fresher than Allende which is still being found and passed off
as a fall now, 35 years later. All else being equal which
piece would you want? Which piece would be more precious to
you?

Why wouldn't the material being advertised be called NWA 1068,
the "type" specimen on the JSC curation page? Or alternately
being advertised as "Probably NWA 1110" or "probably paired
with NWA 1110"? Or as all of the above? That's apparently
the lab opinions, according to the Curation page, Bob, and was
it Greg or Adam. Or at minimum, Or NWA 1068/1110, to avoid
any inadvertant deception, if there is any chance of that?

Or send Dr. Irving and colleague an email asking if NWA 1110
and NWA 1068 (or whichever group is Bob's) are ok to use
interchangeably, i.e., synonyms, and another to the NomCom.
If one says yes, Bob is right, and Adam can be silenced
(except maybe thinking Bob deserves a slap upside the head).
If both say no, insert "probably" in the description of the
material being sold and Voil?, Bob is clear.

Somebody looked at Bob's rock, right, and they considered this
Martian, paired, and it wasn't with the Hupe's
(pronounced "Who pay", with the accent on the second syllable)
bunch, what is it's story? It didn't just magically appear in
eSouk? Just because most of us don't give a crap about the
sale and have other agendas, doesn't mean that a genuine buyer
for the piece shouldn't be privy (and have a right) to this
information. Why it is being called NWA 1110 is a basic right
for a buyer. But once (s)he knows, end of story.

On the Hupes perspective, and in attention to Mark B's
comments, I would suggest a separate point is being argued,
Mark, and that you are right about it, but it is not the main
point of argument here, which has been lost due to the
personalities involved, now including your frustration with
them. Maybe you guys can reconcile with logic along the
following lines: Science is one thing, Commerce is another.
Scientists can do commerce, and businessmen science. But pure
science is a labor and investment of love, and it is nice to
be renumerated, but that is not part of the rules. Meteorites
are not copyritable, at least I hope they are not. 118g
copyright is strictly a business issue. There are no
royalties in meteorites. A scientist can fight with another
scientist and it will be resolved by the scientific method,
and a businessman with another businessman will be resolved by
the Darwinian survival, but a determined businessman will
always rape a scientist, and the scientist will live longer if
he sits backs and understands that or the government
intervenes (IMCA?).

Yes, if IMCA is serious about its role and single mission
of "Authenticity" it must take a clear position in this
dispute, resolving it unambiguously. Anything else is a
failure in its mission and a bowing to select commercial
interests. This is not a criticsm, it is a chance to earn
respect and prove the organization is really "working" in the
interest's of collectors, and the definition of authenticity,
and not just being spineless. Is the IMCA label on the
auction, I didn't check. The opinions are out, it is IMCA's
move. Can it step up to the plate? I ask you to. Frankly, I
don't care which side wins, I just want to know about
authenticity. Is this permitted or not, is it authentic or
not?

While the poor NomCom didn't cause this NWA mess (commerce
did), NomCom is an authority here, and if too much problems
are caused, I will recommend that they drop the whole business
of naming dubious locality sourced meteorites and force
everyone to do their own science, where my guess is the Hupes
will really come out succe$$ully. So it would be a good idea
to take NomCom's lead here on exactly what to call these
unless you already have an up and running certified
petrological classification lab set up in the garage.

I don't have a clue whether Bob chose the NWA 1110 label
because it has the lowest TKW nor do I know whether the Hupes
are using the NomCom to develop brand equity (I.e. brand their
meteorites). I wouldn't think either to be true, not that the
thought never crossed all of our virgin minds. But I would
very much like to see an article in "Meteorite Market Trends"
on this subject of Branding NWA materials, NomCom, and Playing
by the Rules or Exploiting them, since the author this month
mentioned that the market isn't doing much, and has to fill
space on a monthly basis. Like Martin says, TKW from a
scientific point of view is not very interesting, which makes
a huge part of this discussion non-scientific and purely that
of a commercial trade dispute.

On one hand we have people screaming at each other to not
offer buyers material from the same meteorite when someone
else is offering it on the list because this is "ethical" and
morally right, and on the other hand we have people paying
for/donating meteorites for study (and for this the Hupes have
my eternal goodwill), and then having "freeloaders"
appropriate ambiguously their efforts to make a sale. Good
Grief, maybe Mr. Blood is right, in that it is hard to imagine
any agreement here on anything, not even the weather. If it's
like herding cats, why are so many of us cat sheppards?

Saludos, Doug



Hi,

Yeah, I agree, I too can see both sides, I can well see that getting
everything planetary classified is a good move, but if dealers suddenly
flooded the labs with NWA stuff, would the labs want to do it?

The real question is how confident of authenticity are those dealers who
are selling material 'that's probably paired with..' ? . If it is
obvious by looking at like Allende for example then that's fair enough,
but you can't tell me that a weathered Martian or Lunar with no crust is
'obviously genuine' there's plenty of terrestrial stuff that would pass
a 'casual glance test'...

Best
Mark Ford
Received on Thu 09 Sep 2004 01:39:26 PM PDT