[meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed PairingsIssues(SPPI)
From: Walter Branch <waltbranch_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat May 6 09:41:31 2006 Message-ID: <007e01c67112$be8efdf0$6101a8c0_at_BranchFamily> >My NWA 1929 has a similar pricing for those classified and likely paired >http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com/catalog/nwa1929.htm . I have been doing some research on NWA 1929 / NWA 2690 and it is really confusing to me. On Feb. 17, 2004 Adam reported a new Howardite that is paired with NWA 1929, yet according to the online Met Bulletin database, NWA 2690 is a Eucrite that is listed as paired with NWA 1929. The online database lists NWA 2690 as a Eucrite and NWA 1929 as a Howardite http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php ...but it lists the two as being paired The online database at NAU lists NWA 1929 as a Howardite: http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Howardite.html But NWA 2690 is not listed under Eucrites or Howardites. Maybe this is due to different labs studying the same material but how is a pairing statement made? Perhaps MetBull 90 will clarify this but does anyone know anymore about this NWA 1929/2690 paring? -Walter Branch ________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Wesel" <nakhladog_at_comcast.net> To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net> Cc: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed PairingsIssues(SPPI) > Dr. Irving has earned a Ph.D. and the Nom Com votes on his submissions. I > think these qualifications speak for themselves as far as qualifying rocks > > In a lab, I have no doubt. But in the field, wasn't the majority of the > money for that trip spent on a rock that turned out to be a brick from a > kiln? So perhaps cutting parties and field pairings won't count, OK > > Every stone from NWA 2999 had a piece removed, thin-sections made and were > all studied. Every multiple stone classification sharing the same > nomenclature was voted on and approved. > > You have already publicly admitted that NWA 1110 was visually paired by a > scientist and not every piece was tested. So maybe you tested NWA 2999 ad > nauseam, dwindling resources for non commercial actual science and raising > the price to collectors, but that didn't apply to getting your Martian out > in a hurry before hundreds more were found. > > Since when has NWA 1877 ever sold for a thousand a gram? > > I don't recall saying it did > > I see you stole information from an AGU copyrighted abstract, posted it on > your site and gave credit to NASA for it. > > While stole is a bit strong, you have me there and I will look to correct > it. I pulled the NWA 3133 abstract off the NASA Abstract page and failed > to include the source. Now that I did have classified, by the same guy > that did yours. I can't win with you. You just don't like competition do > you? > > Are you still dealing Campo as something else? > > Please refer the IMCA's official stamen on Baygorria, you are a member > aren't you? > > This all boils down to me not conforming to your rules and has nothing to > do with NomCom, MetSoc or IMCA. I can offer material I feel is likely to > be paired as such. In some cases I feel the need to classify and in others > I don't. I am not comparing the subtleties of various H chondrites that > look like every other H chondrite, this olivine diogenite is pretty > distinct. With NWA 2651 which IS paired to NWA 3133 I felt I couldn't make > the call so I had it classified. Let the collectors decide, they know who > they are dealing with and the safety that I will guarantee their > satisfaction. The IMCA says I will follow MetSoc naming/pairing rules. If > you find me saying this olivine diogenite IS paired with NWA 1877 then I > will be in violation. I have classified NWA 1877 material on my website, > it's $50 per gram and anyone is welcome to buy it if they feel safer. My > NWA 1929 has a similar pricing for those classified and likely paired > http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com/catalog/nwa1929.htm . So to accuse me > of any dishonesty is ridiculous and an obvious ploy to detract sales. You > went from talking about classification to accusing me of lying. You have > simply been outmaneuvered on this one, I found a way to sell it faster > than you and make customers (including MetSoc and IMCA members) happy. You > make more money and sell more stones than me, be happy with that. > > Stop throwing mud, you are losing ground. Haven't seen much public rally > to your cause. > > We can continue this off list, the archives are full of this repetitious > argument. > > Rob Wesel > http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com > ------------------ > We are the music makers... > and we are the dreamers of the dreams. > Willy Wonka, 1971 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net> > To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com> > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:57 PM > Subject: [meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings > Issues(SPPI) > > >> Rob, >> >> Since you felt it necessary to step up, claim guilt and show disrespect >> for >> a leader in Meteoritics, I felt I had better respond publicly. >> >> Dr. Irving has earned a Ph.D. and the Nom Com votes on his submissions. >> I >> think these qualifications speak for themselves as far as qualifying >> rocks. >> Of course, the stones were brought back and analyzed properly, something >> that you failed to do and then made up excuses for. I recently sent in 5 >> different type samples for the same type of meteorite because the >> variances >> made it unclear to me that they were part of the same event even though I >> have seen thousands of meteorites. Every stone from NWA 2999 had a piece >> removed, thin-sections made and were all studied. Every multiple stone >> classification sharing the same nomenclature was voted on and approved. >> The >> Nom Com has made provisions for multiple stone entries. One only has to >> read their submission forms to see this has been taken into >> consideration. >> >> If the Nom Com accepts classifications from Cascadia, then I suggest >> having >> your material examined there as they would be more qualified then >> yourself >> at making pairing judgements. Borrowing numbers and data to make stones >> look like official meteorites is in poor taste and demonstrates a lack of >> morals as far as I am concerned. >> >> Since when has NWA 1877 ever sold for a thousand a gram? You may be >> confusing it with NWA 1459 which is not paired, was the first Olivine >> Diogenite in private hands and weighed less than a hundred grams. I see >> you >> stole information from an AGU copyrighted abstract, posted it on your >> site >> and gave credit to NASA for it. Are you still dealing Campo as something >> else? Get your facts straight before pointing you finger at others. >> >> >> Adam >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rob Wesel" <nakhladog_at_comcast.net> >> To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>; >> <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com> >> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:20 PM >> Subject: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI) >> >> >>> Perhaps the term should be "Officially Sorted By A Scientist Over A Few >>> Beers" or "OSBASOAFB's" >>> >>> Just what could Dr Irving do in the field that I can't do in my office. >> Did >>> he have his field SEM with him, his field ion microprobe, his field >>> polarascope? Or was he a fish out of water without his lab relying on >>> you >> to >>> tell him what was and wasn't a meteorite? >>> >>> And the MetSoc has no position on selling meteorites yet, though members >>> have been buying this material. >>> >>> Jeff Grossman's own unedited words (he is the NomCom chair Adam if you >> are >>> not familiar with his work): >>> >>> "On the question of pairing... for most meteorites, pairing studies are >>> of >>> little scientific interest and not worth taking the time to do. Visual >>> pairings are almost worthless. For the important meteorites, pairings >>> get >>> worked out in the scientific literature over time. This may be >>> unsettling >>> for some dealers, but that's the way it is." >>> >>> So apply that to your "cutting parties" and the serious pairing work >>> that >>> goes on Adam. >>> >>> I could take these down to Cascadia tomorrow and say "whaddya think" and >> it >>> would be no less official than yours. >>> >>> and finally from Dr Grossman: >>> >>> " It is acceptable and routine, however, for people to make statements >>> indicating that various numbered stones may be paired (although I would >>> be >>> cautious about believing such statements unless they appear in the >> Bulletin >>> or other scientific publications)." >>> >>> So don't proclaim IMCA standards as MetSoc/NomCom standards to me. >>> >>> Enough was said earlier, you had to open it again. >>> >>> And you bring up number borrowing, I paid for 20% of the cost to get NWA >>> 1877 classified so it is just as much mine as yours. >>> >>> Cheap, lazy, thieving, Clown...out :0) >>> >>> Rob Wesel >>> http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com >>> ------------------ >>> We are the music makers... >>> and we are the dreamers of the dreams. >>> Willy Wonka, 1971 >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net> >>> To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com> >>> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 7:14 PM >>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI) >>> >>> >>> > The excuse that I have 3,000 pieces of what looks like the same stone >>> > won't >>> > fly. As I stated before, every piece of NWA 1110 was examined by a >>> > Nom >>> > Com >>> > approved scientist. NWA 3118, which consisted of thousands of pieces >> was >>> > thoroughly gone through by Dr. Irving in the field, in Morocco. Dr. >> Bunch >>> > literally went through over 2,000 lbs. of my material in Denver taking >>> > three >>> > days to do so. Scientists help me to sort material at cutting >>> > parties. >>> > For >>> > the most part, they seem more than willing to go through large batches >> of >>> > material. I have a new find consisting of several thousand pieces >>> > that >>> > with >>> > the help of Dr. Irving were sorted out and classified. Which would >>> > you >>> > rather have, a self proclaimed pairing or pieces that have been >>> > examined >>> > by >>> > a competant scientist? >>> > >>> > I am not trying to police any market, just stating that the standards >> set >>> > by >>> > the I.M.C.A. and the Meteoritical Society serve a very important >> purpose. >>> > Every other industry seems to have standards in place, why not >> meteorites? >>> > If you agree to be a member of the I.M.C.A. you also agree to the >>> > standards >>> > set forth by the Meteoritical Society. A dealer who operates without >>> > standards is nothing more than a clown as far as I am concerned. >>> > >>> > Enough Said, >>> > >>> > Adam >>> > >>> > >>> > ______________________________________________ >>> > Meteorite-list mailing list >>> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com >>> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> Meteorite-list mailing list >> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> > > > ______________________________________________ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > Received on Sat 06 May 2006 09:41:14 AM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |