[meteorite-list] NWA 4293

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun Oct 22 20:01:34 2006
Message-ID: <001501c6f636$699f1ce0$6501a8c0_at_HPDESKTOP>

Dear List,

It has come to my attention that an individual (not a well-known dealer) on
eBay is marketing bogus stones as NWA 4293 when in fact it is just another
sell-proclaimed pairing. A collector took the time to send me a lot
consisting of five stones that this person offered as NWA 4293 and all of
the stones had caliche on the bottom of them, something that has not been
found on a single NWA 4293 stone that I am aware of. This is bad because I
wholesaled out several lots to honest dealers who are now offering it. I
made notes of the distribution so I am aware of the dealers who carry this
particular stone. I am giving this person exactly one week to pull this
bogus material and then I will publicly expose them as this is not fair to
the dealers and customers who purchased the real material in good faith. I
am still working on an informative website and will start listing the
distribution of each NWA meteorite that we are involved with if I have to
and if I see something bogus I will not hesitate to publicly point it out.

A dealer made this comment: People do NOT own NWA numbers - they are used to
describe material

Here is my response to this:

I agree that while nobody owns any numbers, they do own the material that
these numbers are used to describe. These days, using official numbers
(serial numbers basically) to describe untested or unconfirmed material is
nothing short of fraud. Take for instance a serialized BSG rated baseball
card for whom the owner took the time to have analyzed. This serial number
can be referenced online just like a meteorite. This number is used to
describe a particular card, not any other card whether it is identical,
comes from the same batch or not. Claiming something is paired with another
meteorite without any scientific data to back it up is wrong in the case of
meteorites from areas of high concentration like NWA. Even if a pairing is
suspected, a new number has to be assigned according to NomCom rules which
the IMCA claims to adhere to. In the past, this rule was unclear but is now
well known by anybody who deals NWA meteorites and should be honored. It is
alright to mention pairings just as long as the stone has been studied, has
its own number and the data supports a pairing, otherwise I see it as being
misleading. It is also against the MetSoc rules that we claim to adhere to.
The NomCom has loosened it's rules in regards to multiple stone finds just
as long as they are all submitted at the same time so now there is
absolutely no excuse.

I am not trying to start something here, just giving somebody the
opportunity to correct a wrong without mentioning names.

Adam
Received on Sun 22 Oct 2006 08:01:38 PM PDT