[meteorite-list] Claimed pairings (all unclassifieds are pairings)

From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:29:28 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTiksVobao3inmStWj_DNK2zBiPKBGlt9TzVNq2Ig_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hi Greg and List,

Which reminds me of a point I wanted to make about pairings that I
forgot to mention :

Every dealer who sells "unclassified meteorites" is engaging in
self-pairing. An unclassified meteorite is an oxymoron since any
unanalyzed rock is only a rock. By definition, all "unclassified
meteorites" are simply rocks and nothing more. The dealer (or
collector) is simply stating the rock is a meteorite based on little
more than "eyeballing it". Suffice to say, I have purchased lots of
unclassified meteorites from just about every well-known dealer on the
List - and more than once I actually bought an Earth rock. But, to
get 10 or 20 grams of Earth rocks in a 2-kilogram batch of small
individuals is not surprising and I am not complaining about my
purchases. I am making the point that self-pairing is engaged in by
consensus - if I offer an "unclassified meteorite", it is based on my
assessment of the specimen once it is in my hands. In turn, I am
basing my own purchase on the reputation of the dealer I bought it
from. Once I have it, I go over it with a magnet, loupe, and
microscope. I may do streak tests of specific gravity tests on odd
meteorwrongs or strange rocks - but all of that amounts to a layman
eyeballing it. I doubt most NWA 869 self-pairings go through that
much scrutiny.

Take a look at the people who raise pairing issues on the List -
almost without exception, it is dealers - usually rival dealers who
have vested financial interests in their offerings. Rarely do the
scientists raise the issue - unless it's in response to a controversy
already brewing thanks to dealers.

Science will always sort out the mess - the scientists have the
equipment and expertise to do so. Everything else is speculation and
the vast majority of dealers on this List (myself included) are guilty
of such speculation from time to time, and many of us are guilty of
engaging in self-pairing in regards to unclassified material (or
Western US strewnfield finds).

Which reminds me - is there a central clearinghouse of pairing
information of the NWA finds? (other than the Met Bulletin). It
would be great to see a series of tables showing the various known
pairings - not just for lunar or planetaries, but all known pairings.

Best regards,

MikeG


On 6/18/10, Greg Catterton <star_wars_collector at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 3) pairing controversy is not going to vanish. There is an apparent
> double-standard with pairings and NWA 869 is a good example. We don't
> see bickering over self-pairings of NWA 869 - that just flies under
> the radar for some reason.
>
> I have to agree with this 110%.
> Thats the one main reason I will not buy it.
>
>
> Greg Catterton
> www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com
> IMCA member 4682
> On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites
> On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites
>
>
> --- On Thu, 6/17/10, Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
>> To: "Richard Kowalski" <damoclid at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "meteorite list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 8:01 PM
>> Some thoughts on "pairings" ....
>>
>> 1) The vast majority of classified NWA meteorites have no
>> firm find
>> location data. There are coordinates for some,
>> ballpark area
>> locations for others, and no data whatsoever for
>> many. Often, all
>> that is known is the city in Morocco where the stone was
>> purchased -
>> presumably after being transported a good distance and
>> possibly
>> changing hands more than once along the way. It is
>> reasonable to
>> assume that there are hundreds of unmapped strewnfields in
>> the desert
>> of NWA and it's probable that some of these strewnfields
>> may overlap.
>> So it is also reasonable to assume that many classified NWA
>> meteorites
>> are pairings to other NWA meteorites. It is not the
>> duty of those
>> doing the classification work to compare the new meteorite
>> to every
>> known meteorite to find possible pairings - this is usually
>> done in
>> significant cases, accidentally, or during the course of
>> routine
>> research. Of the countless NWA H5 chondrites, who is
>> going to sit
>> down and check each and every one for pairings? What
>> is the incentive
>> to do so? I think it must be taken as a
>> given that the NWA catalogue
>> contains hundreds (if not thousands) of unnoticed
>> pairings. In terms
>> of NWA numbers, what are we on now? About 7000?
>> I wouldn't be
>> surprised if 1000 turned out to be redundant pairings.
>>
>> 2) One reason the NWA system is in place is to catalogue
>> all of these
>> "nomadic" meteorites. The system does not care if a
>> new meteorite is
>> in fact an old meteorite being classified again. It's
>> not the duty of
>> the classification people or the Meteoritical Society to do
>> this
>> pairing work, so they accept the new meteorite and give it
>> a new NWA
>> number. If somebody wants to come along later and
>> comb through the
>> catalogue looking for pairings, then the data is there for
>> anyone to
>> use. It is my hope that someone will straighten out
>> the NWA mess one
>> day and determine once and all what meteorites are paired
>> with what -
>> so then we can better understand the relationships of these
>> meteorites
>> and perhaps narrow down their possible strewnfields in some
>> cases.
>>
>> 3) pairing controversy is not going to vanish. There
>> is an apparent
>> double-standard with pairings and NWA 869 is a good
>> example. We don't
>> see bickering over self-pairings of NWA 869 - that just
>> flies under
>> the radar for some reason.
>>
>> 4) it is also reasonable to assume, that in many cases,
>> when a large
>> meteorite shows up on the market, it probably comes from a
>> strewnfield
>> where it has smaller brothers and sisters that are
>> undiscovered. But
>> unlike Canyon Diablo or Western US strewnfields, the NWA
>> strewnfields
>> are not mapped or well-defined. So, if one finds a
>> meteorite near the
>> NWA 869 strewnfield, and it looks like NWA 869, that does
>> not mean it
>> is NWA 869. If one finds a meteorite in the Gold
>> Basin strewnfield,
>> and it looks like a Gold Basin meteorite, it probably is -
>> but it
>> might not be. At best, without having a find
>> analyzed, the best a
>> hunter or finder can say is - "this meteorite was found in
>> the Gold
>> Basin strewnfield here at xx.xxx, xx.xxxx." We don't
>> have that
>> benefit with NWA material because nobody has gathered any
>> meaningful
>> strewnfield data from the find areas.
>>
>> 5) a polymict rubblepile like Almahata Sitta can leave
>> behind a
>> chaotic strewnfield of apparently different types - which
>> can only be
>> sorted out in a lab and not in the field or by eye.
>>
>> [/peanut gallery]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/17/10, Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Carl,
>> >
>> > I did not refer to any particular pairing claim.
>> >
>> > Your analogy about finding a body with a bullet in the
>> head argues against
>> > you. Yes, of course you wait for the autopsy. Anything
>> less is NOT science.
>> >
>> > Believe what and who you want, but that doesn't make
>> it scientific fact.
>> >
>> > Claiming a pairing, just because material if found
>> near by is not science
>> > either. Period.
>> >
>> > The meteorite market is very thin and is based on
>> trust. For my money
>> > (literally) I want legitimate scientific proof to
>> stand with the meteorites
>> > in my collection. Third party emails carry no weight
>> whatsoever.
>> >
>> > Have a pairing? Show me the peer reviewed scientific
>> paper proving your
>> > claim. Pretty simple and straight forward.
>> >
>> > To reiterate a quote from the 1980's "Trust, but
>> verify."
>> > I'll add that if you can't verify, there is no reason
>> to trust.
>> >
>> > Show me the lab results that show the claimed paired
>> material is EXACTLY the
>> > same as the original and I'll gladly plunk down my
>> hard earned funds.
>> >
>> > This is a much greater problem than a single claim
>> too. If the trust is lost
>> > that the material, any material, might not be what is
>> claimed, I'm certainly
>> > not going to be buying it, or any more meteorites in
>> the future. I mentioned
>> > other collectibles that hold my interest in a post
>> yesterday. I can just as
>> > easily spend my money buying those items as I can
>> meteorites. If you want to
>> > see the collectible meteorite market collapse, because
>> all trust in the
>> > material being exactly what it is claimed to be with
>> no ambiguity, go ahead
>> > and allow scientifically unsubstantiated claims
>> continue unabated.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Richard Kowalski
>> > Full Moon Photography
>> > IMCA #1081
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Thu, 6/17/10, cdtucson at cox.net
>> <cdtucson at cox.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: cdtucson at cox.net
>> <cdtucson at cox.net>
>> >> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
>> >> To: "meteorite list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>,
>> "Richard
>> >> Kowalski" <damoclid at yahoo.com>
>> >> Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 4:17 PM
>> >> Richard,
>> >> All due respect here.
>> >> If you are hunting and you find a meteorite. You
>> look
>> >> around and
>> >> you find more of the same. You can almost be
>> certain it is
>> >> from the same fall. I
>> >> mean realistically what are the odds of finding
>> any
>> >> meteorite? Now calculate
>> >> the odds of finding two different meteorites
>> together. Now
>> >> we are at
>> >> astronomical odds against.
>> >> Yes, Almahatta sitta proves material from the
>> same
>> >> fall can be very different but, testing confirmed
>> it is
>> >> still from the same fall.
>> >> So, in most cases it is easy to consider pairings
>> based on
>> >> find locations.
>> >> Yes,
>> >> there have been numerous cases of totally
>> unrelated
>> >> meteorites found together
>> >> but, they usually are ruled out as paired right
>> away
>> >> visually. As an example.
>> >> Snyder Hill was found while looking for Cat
>> Mountain but,
>> >> they looked totally
>> >> different visually. And therefore ruled out as
>> being
>> >> paired. that said. The info
>> >> put forth so far is as follows.
>> >> This is a rough outline of the facts as presented
>> so far;
>> >> !. Meteorites are found by Mbarek..
>> >> 2. Mbarek distributes some of them including NWA
>> 5400 to
>> >> Greg.
>> >> 3. Mbarek passes. ( Allah rest his soul)
>> >> 4. Estate of Mbarek retains 334 grams of same
>> find
>> >> material.
>> >> 5. 334 grams from Mbarek gets offered by Ali and
>> is highly
>> >> sought.
>> >> 6. This gets confirmed by Habibi Aziz.
>> >> 7. Aziz shows copies of emails from Jambon ( in
>> french)
>> >> which confirm it is paired with NWA 5400 and NWA
>> 5363.And
>> >> O-isotopes were doone.
>> >> 7. Passing of Mbarek adds to confusion but, this
>> is
>> >> material that originated from the same guy we
>> >> are talking about here.
>> >> 8. Pairing may not be official until isotopes are
>> done but
>> >> hardly a gamble here.
>> >> Although this will get science more material
>> (nothing wrong
>> >> with that) .
>> >> According to Abibi Isotopic
>> >> results have been done and confirm this is not a
>> brachenite
>> >> . Even though it looks like one.
>> >> Requiring tests that can only be done by certain
>> people
>> >> puts a huge and possibly
>> >> an unnecessary burden on finders job description.
>> >> It's a bit like finding a body with a bullet in
>> the head
>> >> and saying the cause of
>> >> death is unknown until the autopsy.
>> >> Do we really need to wait for an autopsy? Sure we
>> do as a
>> >> formality but, that
>> >> does not change the results of the race. Either
>> way he died
>> >> of a bullet in the
>> >> head.
>> >> Ipso facto, This material is paired unless someone
>> is
>> >> lying. If people are
>> >> telling the truth then this is paired and asking
>> for more
>> >> isotopes is mere
>> >> confirmation of a fact we already know.
>> >> I hate the thought of having to cut up every
>> meteorite just
>> >> to prove it came
>> >> from the same fall.
>> >> Before they discovered Calcalong creek amongst
>> the
>> >> millbillies it was easy to
>> >> find a nice uncut Millbillillie. Not so now a
>> days. Most
>> >> have been cut to see if
>> >> they match calcalong Creek. To me this is a
>> shame.
>> >> Again this is said with the utmost respect
>> to everybody.
>> >> This is just my opinion.
>> >> I would hate to go to a known strewnfield and then
>> have to
>> >> jump through hoops to prove it came from where I
>> found it.
>> >> Part of this email is from a post that did not go
>> through
>> >> to list before.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Carl
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Carl or Debbie Esparza
>> >> Meteoritemax
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---- Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Not being a professional meteoriticist, I
>> would assume
>> >> that any meteorite claimed to be paired with
>> another needs
>> >> to be studied by qualified scientists. From what
>> I
>> >> understand it is always preferable to have the
>> scientist who
>> >> did the original classification to study any
>> meteorites
>> >> submitted for possible pairing because they are 1,
>> familiar
>> >> with the material, 2, have material used for the
>> original
>> >> classification on hand for comparison and 3, are
>> able to use
>> >> the same instruments used for the original
>> classification
>> >> for any additional material being submitted.
>> >> >
>> >> > After the material has been studied and found
>> to be
>> >> paired,I would imaging that there is some peer
>> reviewed
>> >> process to announce the pairing, is there not?
>> >> >
>> >> > We've seen with h that you can have very
>> >> different classifications from the same fall and
>> because of
>> >> this extensive studies needed to be made to
>> confirm that the
>> >> stone were from the same fall, even though they
>> were all
>> >> found in the same area.
>> >> >
>> >> > It also seems to me that anyone claiming a
>> pairing has
>> >> the responsibility to provide samples for testing
>> and is
>> >> also responsible for all costs associated with
>> this testing.
>> >> The onerous of proof goes to the person claiming
>> they have
>> >> paired material. Until this scientific proof, that
>> can and
>> >> is peer reviewed for validity of the procedures
>> used to
>> >> determine the said pairing, any and all claims of
>> a pairing
>> >> should be rejected outright and in their
>> entirety.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Richard Kowalski
>> >> > Full Moon Photography
>> >> > IMCA #1081
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> ______________________________________________
>> >> > 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Mike Gilmer - Galactic Stone & Ironworks Meteorites
>> http://www.galactic-stone.com
>> http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gilmer - Galactic Stone & Ironworks Meteorites
http://www.galactic-stone.com
http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Fri 18 Jun 2010 02:29:28 PM PDT