[meteorite-list] By Popular Demand................

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:13:30 +0200
Message-ID: <015c01c89e52$dcf8f830$177f2a59_at_name86d88d87e2>

I don't know, I haven't found my calmative pills yet...
For me it's like stepping in a parallel hypothetical universe.

Could we please to try to quantify,
how often that happened, that someone was burnt, in buying a meteorite,
which was declared to be a different more historic locales?

Then we would see more clearly, if there does exist that problem at all,
or whether it is of speculative character only.

Please no names,
nobody want to see endless flame wars here.

Would be sufficient, to raise the finger, to write me! And the number of
cases. (although it would be interesting, to know the name of the meteorite
too, for not having dozens of Baygorria-cases her. And whether it was on
ebay..).

Thanks!
Martin


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Mark
Crawford
Gesendet: Montag, 14. April 2008 18:57
An: Impactika at aol.com
Cc: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] By Popular Demand................

I guess the question here is, do sellers have a right to anonymity, and
if so, when does it outweigh the buyer's right to provenance?

As a collector I'm delighted to have more provenance, because it add to
the interest of the piece, the future value, and gives me even more
confidence that it's genuine. As far as authenticity goes, however, in
the case of people like Anne, I've already accepted the material is
genuine because of the person doing the selling. In terms of setting a
model of behavious, I think as a general rule you would find that more
trustworthy sellers would be more likely to provide sources, whereas
less trustworthy ones wouldn't (or would plain lie!). (This is NOT a
suggestion that only shady characters wouldn't want to list their
sources...)

But from a purely commercial point of view, I can't see how this could
work. If dealer A is selling material for $50/g, and his source (B) is
selling for $25/g, am I really going to approach A? I'm going to be
beating a path to B, as Martin points out, and demanding a better deal -
and I'm going to put A in the 'taking the mickey' pile. Not good for
either A or B. Or, if I happen to know that A is buying from C, and
that C has a contact in NWA, I may try to cut out the middle man and go
straight to the source. Not good for anyone.

I think the whole idea puts an artificial spin to the market, and as
long as you accept the reality that it /is/ a market, I don't think it's
a workable option.

The exception I would argue for is historics - there is often so little
material that I think it's fair and reasonable to expect a higher degree
of proof. But even then, for me the onus is on the buyer to request the
information, rather than the seller to offer it up front.


Mark

Impactika at aol.com wrote:
> Hello List-Members,
>
> After reading all the emails yesterday, I decided there was only one
thing I
> could do: publish my sources.
>

-- 
Mark's Meteorite Pages: http://meteorites.cc
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Received on Mon 14 Apr 2008 01:13:30 PM PDT