[meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)

From: dean bessey <deanbessey_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri May 5 17:54:34 2006
Message-ID: <20060505215432.53064.qmail_at_web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I still think this is carried to the point of
argueuing "My meteorites are better than your
meteorites" although there are valid points to the
arguement and no easy answer - especially the extreme
difficulty getting classifications or even a
provisional name from the met society.
However, the coin analogy is interesting. Contrary to
what was said earlier a coin is not necessarily worth
more if it is PCGS graded. Might be worth more or sell
easier on ebay where grade is in question but less so
at shows where you can see them and make your own
opinion.
Remember, anybody can start up a coin grading service.
And many people have. And you will find that PCGS,
ICCS, ICG and others do not have the same grading
standards. ICCS is in many dealers and collectors
opinion (Including mine) that the coins are
undergraded. Grades are lower than described in most
coin books an doften make no sense. Compare an ICCS
and an ICG coin and they are at least a half grade and
often more different. An ICCS coin will be worth more
but only because people know that the standard is
different. Many people will bid higher on ebay knowing
the coin is probably undergraded. Go to a coin show
and buyers size up the quality and grade them
themselves - maybe using the slab as a guide. A joke
in the coin industry is that "There is a grade when
you buy and another grade when you sell". But if you
buy ICG graded coins you will have a lower grade
collection than if you buy ICCS graded coins.
Also, on the coin slabs there is a disclaimer that its
only their opinion that the coin is genuine and not
legally binding (As one sharp eyed employee at one
grading company found out a couple years ago after
slabbing five MS63 1914D pennies that he noticed all
had the same bag marks).
It might work as a guide (And for insurance) but the
slabed coins are not set in stone and not a perfect
guide to their value.
Maybe a couple competing meteorite recording companies
competing with the met society might be in order.
Might make it easier to get a name and maybe they
could have different classifiaction standards. Maybe
accept an optical technique for classifications -
which will get the same or extremily close
classifiaction as the expensive and time consuming
petrographic classifications that is sued anyway. If
that was done with the common stuff might clear up
some work at the labs. Its not like the way
classifications get done always get the same
classification anyway - just look at NWA869 and all
the different classifiactions on that or the
howardites that sometimes get eucrite classifications
depending on who is doing the classification and the
sample that was used.
But no matter what one thinks of the pairing issue it
is not feisable to get the classifications on every
single stone. But you can often recogonize them anyway
and the arguement will then degenerate into the "my
meteorites are better than your meteorites" thing.
Nobody questioned the Imilacs I found a couple years
ago and said that every single 2 gram stone should be
paired.
There are valid arguements on both sides but find some
way to affordably and quickly get classifications done
and this topic will mostly go away.
Sincerely
DEAN
















__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri 05 May 2006 05:54:32 PM PDT