[meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions

From: Greg Hupe <gmhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:40:34 -0500
Message-ID: <55FCB8813D624645A587E9DA0CF5FA2A_at_Gregor>

Hello Greg C. and All,

The self pairing issue comes up at least once a year. I agree that a single
number would be best for all, but there are too many problems with that
model. In the original question Greg C. asked with NWA 1877 as an example,
as one of the original co-owners of the NWA 1877 material, I believe in
keeping the TKW's and authenticity of the material as accurate as possible.
The NomCom has laid out specific rules which should be followed as Jeff
Grossman very clearly pointed out. About a year after NWA 1877 was given the
official number, on one of my near-monthly trips to Morocco at the time I
bought more of the material that surfaced. Instead of selling it as "NWA
1877", I followed the rules and supplied a 20-gram type sample to scientists
and paid the lab and scientists their fees to have it officially classified.
I received a new number, "NWA 5603". In my eBay description, I mention the
pairing to NWA 1877.

An example to illustrate it is not a good idea to take the word of someone
selling "self-paired" material, lets take the case of the Martian NWA 2975.
As Jim Strope pointed out, "NWA 2975" was a single stone, yet other small
complete individuals are being sold as NWA 2975. Another case where many of
us did the right thing and supplied the full type sample and received a
pairing NWA number. There was a great case why we should not cheap out with
hiring a competent lab and providing the required full type sample. In this
particular case, a well established meteorite dealer was trying to sell a
somewhat large Martian stone as, "...being paired to NWA 2975..." As it
turned out, that single stone WAS NOT paired to NWA 2975 and it was through
the efforts of competent scientists and others who helped to correct that
wrong to the delight of the dealer offering that supposed "pairing". It now
has an Official meteorite Name/number and now it is accurate and different
from 2975. Bottom line, it does not pay to cheap out with getting stones
authenticated and paired if the material actually is.

As to the case of NWA 5480, I first got that material and had the scientists
do their work to reveal the amazing components of this new meteorite. The
people who I purchased the material from in Morocco sent me a few more
stones they were sure were paired to it. After receiving these few stones,
it turned out one of the stones WAS NOT the same as NWA 5480. This goes to
show that self pairing not only hurts the true nature of the material, it
makes it to where collectors become unconfident in buying from people who
make self pairing claims. The stones that were paired were added to the TKW
of NWA 5480. Sometimes it is simply an accident that the 'other' material is
thought to be the same, other times it is not this way. Either way, it is
the responsibility of resellers to do the right thing.

So, lets keep it real and do the responsible thing for the sake of accuracy
for both the science and to keep collectors confident in what they are
purchasing. As new meteorite collectors/dealers enter the arena year after
year, it is up to them to do the right thing. You can not simply take the
word of someone who claims, "This material is for sure the same as 'NWA
1877, 2975, 5480' "... and the list goes on.

As Adam coined several years ago, "When in doubt, check it out!"

I wish everyone a prosperous and accurate year for collecting, finding and
selling meteorites!

Best regards,
Greg

====================
Greg Hupe
The Hupe Collection
NaturesVault (eBay)
gmhupe at htn.net
www.LunarRock.com
IMCA 3163
====================
Click here for my current eBay auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault


--- On Mon, 1/18/10, Zelimir Gabelica <Zelimir.Gabelica at uha.fr> wrote:

> At 17:09 18/01/2010, Greg Catterton wrote:
> > I have often wondered and after some discussion with
> others I wanted to get the community feeling on the issue of
> pairings.
> >
> > If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out there
> and more is recovered and verified to be the same material
> from the same strewnfield, should the new material share the
> NWA number and the TKW be updated?
> > I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many
> other meteorites.
> > Same material with different numbers and TKWs listed.
> >
> > Would it not be in the best interest to have all the
> paired samples share on number? This would surely cut the
> amount of NWA material by 1000 or more.
> > Why is this not done?
> >
> > What is the process for pairing material to share the
> NWA number?
> > Is it up to the dealer or the person who did testing?
> >
> > What affect would it have on value if something with a
> listed TKW of 200g suddenly was paired with the 3 other
> numbers assigned to the same material and the TKW was pushed
> to 1kg or more?
> > Surely it would decrease as supply grew. Is this a
> concern for some?
> >
> > I am trying to better understand the politics/red tape
> that goes with this area.
> >
> > Thanks, hope everyone is doing well.
> >
> > Greg C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Visit the Archives at
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> Prof. Zelimir Gabelica
> Universit? de Haute Alsace
> ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC,
> 3, Rue A. Werner,
> F-68093 Mulhouse Cedex, France
> Tel: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 94
> Fax: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 15
>



______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Mon 18 Jan 2010 01:40:34 PM PST