[meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions

From: Greg Catterton <star_wars_collector_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <91527.85486.qm_at_web46415.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Thanks Greg, great post with really good information.

This is a great topic that I am sure many who read will benefit from.
Pairing is an important issue in my opinion and the comments offered here can surely help anyone when dealing with unclassified and paired NWA material.

Jeff is one of the top guys, if not the top guy concerning classification and offered great information.
Greg has been at this for some time and is still around, so hes doing something right.
Free education from people who know is a great thing.

I have learned a great deal about this already from the discussion and hope others come out with just as much.
Save these posts to word doc or something for future use, its good stuff.


Greg C.

--- On Mon, 1/18/10, Greg Hupe <gmhupe at htn.net> wrote:

> From: Greg Hupe <gmhupe at htn.net>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
> To: "Greg Catterton" <star_wars_collector at yahoo.com>
> Cc: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 1:40 PM
> 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 02:20:20 PM PST