[meteorite-list] Re: Acapulcoite TKW Update

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Feb 14 23:39:17 2006
Message-ID: <00d301c631e9$e5b01120$6401a8c0_at_c1720188a>

Hi John,

This does not explain why you had no weight listed at all on your web-site
according to the cached version in google.com which is only one day old if
you knew there was 1,666 grams plus a 7.5 kilogram stone. You asked me to
back up my claims with pictures and said you were curious because I didn't
report an unknown and unreported mass weight. It seems you are guilty of the
same thing to a larger extent even though you apparently knew more than I
did when this string started. Here is your statement putting me under the
thumb-screws. Can we ask you the same questions?

****************************
Did the write up describe it as a whole stone? Is it surrounded by fusion
crust like a whole stone? If so, could you
maybe post some pics for the list?

We were just curious, because in your ebay ad you stated that you didn't
have any accurate figures on the TKW of pairings, and yet, the TKW of ~7.5kg
has been publicly available on the internet for months now, and in the
Meteorite Bulletin data base it states the following:
*****************************

I will ask Jim Witke about the reported weight of NWA 2714 which stands at
100 grams since he is a stickler for accuracy. Still waiting to hear why you
recently added the weight to your web-site when it was not there before this
"string" started or should I state "Sting"?

Take Care,

Adam

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Birdsell" <johnbirdsell_at_yahoo.com>
To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>;
<meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Re: Acapulcoite TKW Update


> Hi Adam. Yes, we completely understand your confusion
> over all of the different TKW's reported. That is why
> we are attempting to clarify this issue once and for
> all. The important thing to note is that the TKW now
> stands at over 10kg. NAU's website will eventually
> need to be corrected as will the provisional Met
> Bulletin once we get this TKW issue sorted out. The
> TKW of NWA 2714 is 1666g, not 100g. According to the
> classifying Scientist, our NWA 2714 came from the
> 7.5kg whole stone that now appears to be wholly
> accounted for by Stan's and Nelson's portions.
> Therefore, since that obviously is incorrect, our 1666
> grams of NWA 2714 either came from a larger stone that
> was broken into fragments which were then sold to
> Stan, Nelson, us, some others and perhaps you, or
> perhaps it was a separate individual (I doubt the
> latter). We try to keep our website updated to reflect
> the new TKW as we understood it 40 minutes ago. Of
> course we will now need to further update it once we
> tabulate the additional masses of other pairings
> kindly provided to us by list members. We'll be happy
> to share this total with you once we get it so that
> you can update your ebay auctions too, but for now I
> think it is safe to say there is more than 10kg of
> this beautiful material in existance. It is important
> to properly report the TKW so that the collectors know
> the facts as we currently understand them.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> -John
>
>
> --- Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear John and List,
> >
> > I applaud trying to nail down the TKW but as Stan
> > stated NWA 2656 was
> > divided among two owners. I was not supplied by
> > either one of them. You
> > claim NWA 2714 with a reported TKW of 100 grams
> > according to NAU's documents
> > was part of this same mass. Stan claims it was
> > divided between Nelson Oaks
> > and himself with a claimed weight 386 grams. Now you
> > claim the weight of NWA
> > 2714 is 1,666 grams on your recently updated
> > web-site. The cached website
> > results for your site from google make no mention of
> > the weight. It was
> > brought in to question whether my stone was a
> > fragment of this one and I
> > responded it was not. I was then dragged through the
> > ringer on TKWs which
> > make absolutely no sense since parts of the same
> > stone have been claimed
> > under different numbers. Since I had to explain my
> > position, maybe you can
> > explain the website discrepancy and the 100 gram
> > recorded weight on NAU's
> > site below. I am sure everybody would like to know
> > about NWA 2714.
> >
> >
> http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/PrimitiveAchondrite.html
> >
> > I was sincere in my statements regarding the nature
> > of tracking TKWs on
> > pairings. As you can see, this is a mess!
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> > Adam Hupe
> > The Hupe Collection
> > Team LunarRock
> > IMCA 2185
> > raremeteorites_at_comcast.net
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Birdsell" <johnbirdsell_at_yahoo.com>
> > To: "stan ." <laser_maniac_at_hotmail.com>;
> > <Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 6:39 PM
> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Re: Acapulcoite TKW Update
> >
> >
> > > Hi Stan and thanks for your email. Ok, I think
> > that
> > > this Acapulcoite TKW thing really needs to get
> > nailed
> > > down before the next Met Bulletin comes out. Can
> > > everyone that has a significant amount of this
> > > material write us either on or off list so that we
> > can
> > > add up all of the pieces and get the correct TKW.
> > > Stan, am I correct in assuming that between you
> > and
> > > Nelson, you had 7500 grams of NWA 2656? We had
> > 1666
> > > grams of NWA 2714, so that brings the TKW weight
> > up to
> > > at least 9166 grams, plus Adam's 77 grams = 9243
> > > grams...Any more out there?
> > >
> > >
> > > -John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "stan ." <laser_maniac_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > for those that might be curious the mass of 2656
> > was
> > > > broken into 'pieces' -
> > > > as in 2 pieces. Nelson Oaks has one and I have
> > the
> > > > other, with a few slices
> > > > being sold off here and there. If Adam's piece
> > is
> > > > paired then the bueaty of
> > > > this stuff really cant be understated - it's
> > > > gorgeous material. IF anyone
> > > > wants a piece and 4 or 5 grams isnt enough then
> > > > wirte Nelson, I belive his
> > > > piece is up for grabs - or at least it was
> > listed in
> > > > Lang's auction at
> > > > tucson...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: John Birdsell <johnbirdsell_at_yahoo.com>
> > > > >To: Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> > > > >Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Adam's NWA 2989
> > > > Acapulcoite
> > > > >Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:21:11 -0800 (PST)
> > > > >
> > > > >Hi Bernd...Yes, if it is paired to our new
> > > > Acapulcoite
> > > > >NWA 2714 and NWA 2656, then the provisional
> > > > write-up
> > > > >in MB90 states that the TKW is accounted for by
> > a
> > > > >single ~ 7.5 kilogram stone which was
> > apparently
> > > > >broken into pieces and sold.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >-John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >--- bernd.pauli_at_paulinet.de wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello All !
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just purchased my 3.7-gram, extremely
> > > > metal-
> > > > > > and troilite-rich slice
> > > > > > of NWA 2989 (Item #6605571076 - just in case
> > you
> > > > > > care to take a look ;-)
> > > > > > that Adam is offering on EBay. Look at it
> > and
> > > > you'll
> > > > > > know what I mean!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adam writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "...TKW of 77 grams is recorded for NWA
> > 2989.
> > > > This
> > > > > > weight does
> > > > > > not reflect any pairings since I do not
> > have
> > > > > > accurate figures."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is probably paired with NWA 2656, of
> > which I
> > > > own
> > > > > > a beautiful slice
> > > > > > weighing 0.29 grams.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adam also writes: "... the lowest price you
> > will
> > > > > > find on EBay."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And right he is! I paid $290 for my little,
> > > > > > beautiful NWA 2656 (which I do not
> > > > > > regret!). Go figure and do the maths what I
> > > > would
> > > > > > have had to pay for more than
> > > > > > 10 times the weight (3.7 grams) of my
> > 0.29-gram
> > > > > > ACAP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The specimen that comes closest to the one I
> > > > > > purchased seems to be the 2.55-gram
> > > > > > part slice - also very metal-rich and almost
> > > > like my
> > > > > > little NWA 2656 with all its
> > > > > > delicate veins and veinlets. It doesn't show
> > > > those
> > > > > > slender troilite inclusions but
> > > > > > this part slice would be my choice no. 2.
> > I'd
> > > > buy
> > > > > > both of them if I could afford it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What makes acapulcoites, and especially this
> > > > one, so
> > > > > > interesting is their achondritic,
> > > > > > granular texture and, at the same time, they
> > > > have an
> > > > > > ordinary chondrite mineralogy.
> > > > > > That's why you find both abundant metal
> > (similar
> > > > to
> > > > > > H chondrites!) and sulfide in them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another interesting feature is the rare
> > > > occurrence
> > > > > > of relict chondrules, and, as they do
> > > > > > not plot too far away from both angrites,
> > > > > > brachinites on the one hand, and from
> > ureilites
> > > > > > on the other, you will also find grain
> > > > boundaries
> > > > > > meeting in triple junctions (120?).
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
Received on Tue 14 Feb 2006 11:40:06 PM PST