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

From: Meteoriteshow <meteoriteshow_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat May 6 06:20:18 2006
Message-ID: <00ac01c670f6$aa345560$0400a8c0_at_IBM>

Well that can happen, but should not be done this way -I know I'm a kind of utopist-.

I should have some Acfer OCs in the coming Met Bul, with some of them classified as one, all of the fragments being analysed and
paired. My mate and I found them ourselves 4 years ago and have provided exact GPS coordinates. Location + analyses have shown that
all fragments belong to the same fall and we did not decide this result by ourselves.

It takes time to get a proper classification and many dealers are in a hurry to sell and make money. This is why we have to face
what you are right to call some 'musical classifications'...
'Back on investment' has become the main rule!

Frederic Beroud
http://www.meteoriteshow.com
IMCA member # 2491 (http://www.imca.cc/)

----- Original Message -----
From: "stan ." <laser_maniac_at_hotmail.com>
To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 11:03 PM
Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)


>
> >when there is a way to be sure you're getting
> >the real deal and the IMCA are helping in that regard.
>
>
> well thats the thing. following 'the rules' as Adam put it isnt a sure fire
> was of making sure you have a 100% guagantee of buying what you thought you
> were buying. There have been many cases of 'musical classifications' in the
> past and this will continue in the future.
>
> Furthermore when a new find is classified that consists of many stones /
> fragments TYPICALLY a type specimin is not provided for each and every
> single fragment of meteorite recovered. What does that mean? well from one
> extreem it means that the holder of the find is self pairing all of the
> material to that of the rock that the type specimin came from or at best a
> researcher is doing a cursory examination of all the fragments, but not the
> full battery of tests that are required to confirm an 'offical' pairing.
>
> The typical procedure is that any mass reported before a classification is
> published becomes 'official' - if it is not reported in time then a whole
> slew of testing must be preformed to verify a pairing - testing that is not
> required for specimins that do not have a type specimin submitted for if
> they are reported in time. This is the root of most discontent with the
> whole 'number' game.
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sat 06 May 2006 06:20:14 AM PDT