[meteorite-list] Does this NWA look familiar to anyone?

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Jan 27 16:48:39 2005
Message-ID: <02d701c504b8$932fbcc0$6401a8c0_at_c1720188a>

Mark,

Official means that a type specimen was submitted, a NomCom approved
laboratory studied the specimen, a classification was submitted and then
voted on. NWA 787 was handled by UCLA and a classification was submitted.
I cannot say that the original party resubmitted these classifications to
the NomCom but I do know UCLA submitted a report to the party who submitted
the type specimen.

A great deal of NWA 800 series numbers are missing including NWA 800 and NWA
801. This is being looked into by Dr. Irving and hopefully the situation
will be corrected. You have already expressed your opinions that are in
disagreement with the NomCom. Everybody is entitled to there opinion. Now
that everybody is aware of the rules maybe some of these issues can be
sorted out. We have resubmitted over a dozen meteorites to be reclassified
and receive new numbers assignments because of numbering issues. Several
other dealers are in the process of doing the same thing. This is a slow
and expensive process but will help to keep animosities down in the future.

Kind Regards,
------------------------------------
Adam Hupe
The Hupe Collection
Team LunarRock
IMCA 2185
raremeteorites_at_comcast.net





----- Original Message -----
From: "MARK BOSTICK" <thebigcollector_at_msn.com>
To: <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>; <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Does this NWA look familiar to anyone?


> Hello Darren and list,
>
> Yes, you are correct. Do not listen to Adam's, once again, misleading
> statements. We all know they are the same meteorite.
>
> I really do not understand Adam's ideal of "official". Neither NWA 787 or
> NWA 869 has been published in any meteorite bulliten. And unlike what you
> might get from Adam's e-mail, his opinion does not make meteorites
official.
> Both of these meteorites have been classified by UCLA and by the same
> person. NWA 869 twice....and at least a dozen times by other institutes.
> And if Adam would walk the line he has been talking, then any NWA 787 he
> sold you, is not NWA 787, because that name would only apply to the one
> stone that UCLA classified, which again is not "official".
>
> We all know the same meteorite is the same meteorite. I noticed he didn't
> like "provisionally paired", when we all know its the same meteorite.
> Perhaps, we should use, "fell at the same time, in the same location and
> from the same parent body."
>
> In this case, they are not "officially" (whatever that means) paired, NWA
> 787 and your "NWA 869" just fell at the same time, in the same location
and
> from the same parent body.
>
> Mark Bostick
> www.meteoritearticles.com
>
>
Received on Thu 27 Jan 2005 04:38:42 PM PST