[meteorite-list] Personal Thoughts

From: Rob Wesel <nakhladog_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon May 8 21:30:37 2006
Message-ID: <004c01c67308$26e544d0$59681618_at_robewcufk0z2s3>

Well spoken Adam

While our posts were sometimes aimed at each other, words like clown and
thief and lazy will do that, we are really aiming at a difference in
philosophy. I am opposed to the current multiple standards of practice
regarding classification and feel that the current dense area rulings are
for the science of piecing together strewnfield/dynamics information as
opposed to verification of material. If not the case then why can all
meteorites from Burkina Faso, another dense area, pass by my eyes and be
called Gao, Bilanga, Lampiayrie, Bogou, Bereba, Guibga, and Nadiabondi with
the NomCom's blessing. I am part owner of 1877 and am borrowing NomCom data
on my own material with this case and with 1929. All said, the olivine
diogenite suspect I have been selling has been submitted for naming...but it
won't change any outcomes except bogging down real scientific work that
could have been done instead of a hopeless attempt to make an NWA map
hypothesis. IF it were authenticity then other dense areas would apply and
every Gao would be checked against every Lampiayrie and so on.

The names belong to the NomCom, that is who I borrow from, and if my eyes
are trained to assess Tatahouine uncontested they are trained to assess this
one.

My views, not against you but the system and if we don't say the machine is
broken every now and then there will be no debate or effort to change it. So
yes, I bow, on my own accord. It will come up again, and we'll differ again.

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: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:04 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Personal Thoughts


> Dear List,
>
> I will try to present this in a way that is not directed at any single
> individual or dealer.
>
> I felt the List needed an explanation as to why I get so upset about
> description and number borrowing so that my real motives are known.
>
> First of all, this not entirely about commercial purposes although
> admittedly this plays a small part in all of this because there are some
> real costs involved. It is about what I feel is right and fair. I do not
> feel it is fair for somebody other than parties who had their material
> classified use numbers that apply only to certain meteorites for the
> following reasons;
>
> Published NWA numbers only apply to meteorites or groups of meteorites
> that
> were formally studied, submitted and then voted on.
>
> The weight is recorded under a particular number so using nomenclature
> that
> applies to an official or provisional meteorite to describe another will
> only serve to make these weight entries inaccurate.
>
> Although nobody owns these numbers, they do own the material that these
> numbers describe. This also includes collectors who purchased officially
> studied material under a particular number from a dealer who followed the
> processes in good faith.
>
> Dealers sometimes have to wait over five years to have material
> classified,
> for example, as is the case with our NWA 960 meteorite. Is it fair that
> somebody comes along, visually inspects their material and then claim that
> it is the same? It may very well be from the same fall but it unjust for
> a
> dealer to claim they have the same material and use data that was intended
> for another meteorite when steps were not taken to officially prove this.
> Is it fair that somebody brings back material, waits sometimes up to
> several
> years for a classification, pays the lab costs, writes the descriptions
> and
> then have some dealer skip all of these processes and use information that
> was intended to describe official material for his own personal gain?
>
> Is it fair to collectors who purchased official material to have
> unofficial
> and unclassified material being claimed as the same or even likely the
> same
> without have it first tested? There is too much room for abuse if dealers
> are allowed to use data and numbers intended for official or provisional
> meteorites to describe unqualified material. Why should anybody get
> anything classified if this is an acceptable practice? Heck, if I could
> simple borrow numbers and descriptions from others, why bother with
> classifications at all? Why get mad at the people who claimed they had
> complete Baygorrias for sale if this practice is acceptable. After all,
> they share virtually identical classifications and visually look
> identical.
> The Baygorria fiasco only served to undermine collector confidence is the
> only reason I used it as an example. This not directed at any dealer who
> followed the Met. Soc. standards in this case.
>
> The point is that the Met. Soc. rules concerning NWA nomenclature might
> not
> be to everybody's liking but they do serve a valuable purpose. From a
> commercial standpoint, Dealers were invited to input their ideas in
> regards
> to the rules concerning NWA material and a collective consensus was
> reached.
> A lot of thought went into the process and this is the best that is
> available at this time. If somebody doesn't care to follow the rules then
> they shouldn't use NWA nomenclature and classifications published by the
> Meteoritical Society because they shouldn't have it both ways.
>
> Not trying to start something here, just expressing my personal thoughts.
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Mon 08 May 2006 09:30:26 PM PDT