[meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss

From: michael cottingham <mikewren_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 19:39:34 -0600
Message-ID: <10F608AF-6D12-4800-BFC8-0A3FF928C031_at_gilanet.com>

Hello,

When Jason brought this to my attention, I was in shock, then angry. A big part of this meteorite business is trusting your source.
Mistakes can happen and without looking to deep for a guilty party and misdeeds, I decided to just call it a lesson learned and to make sure from now on to trust my source- 100%, but also...tether the camel so to speak...

I have pretty much contacted everyone who bought that particular "Mifflin" stone from me and I have taken care of business and refunded them their money. However, if you have a question about a Mifflin piece that you got from me...take a picture and send it to me and I will confirm one way or the other. Luckily I sold very few pieces from that stone and most are accounted for. ALL my other Mifflin was a 100% Mifflin...because I found them or was with the person who found them and then purchased them from them..in the field! No wonder the majority of my meteorites these days come with super provenance, and many cards with chain of ownership. If you do not believe me...look at my ebay store and see how I emphasis provenance these days!

Best Wishes

Michael Cottingham




On May 7, 2011, at 7:12 PM, jason utas wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> My story begins in the summer of last year. I saw some strange pieces
> of 'Mifflin' on ebay that I thought looked funny. People were talking
> about the meteorite having two lithologies, but...the slices and
> individuals that I saw looked 'off.' A select few looked like
> H-chondrites, and they had the telltale signs of wear that
> freshly-imported Moroccan falls bear: worn edges, exposed metal flakes
> on protruding corners (where the fusion crust had been worn off due to
> improper packing), etc.
>
> At the time, I did nothing but send a private email to Anne Black
> notifying her of my suspicions. I spoke with some other prominent
> list-members addressing it, and they all agreed that the material
> looked funny, but that nothing could be done about it given the
> required burden of proof.
>
> So, I sat on my hands for several months.
>
> Just over a month ago, I saw a piece of the funny-looking 'Mifflin' on
> ebay. It looked similar to some pieces that I remembered seeing on
> ebay months before, and, being an end-cut, I was able to see both the
> stone's funny-looking inside -- and the apparent metal grains on the
> stone's exterior.
>
> I used the 'buy-it-now' option to purchase the end-cut, and it
> arrived while Peter and I were in Morocco. When we returned, I
> promptly shipped the end-cut off to Tony Irving of the University of
> Washington; he agreed to analyze the stone posthaste.
>
> The results came back, but Tony wanted to wait until the probe was
> recallibrated so that he could run it again to be sure.
>
> Lo and behold, he did confirm that my end-cut was an equilibrated
> H-chondrite, with an olivine Fa of 18.6. For comparison, Chergach and
> Bassikounou both have Fa contents of 18.4 and 18.6, respectively.
>
> University of Madison, Wisconsin performed most of the work on the
> Mifflin fall. Between them and the Field Museum, over twenty separate
> stones were analyzed. They were all L5. Mifflin is classified as an
> L5, with an Fa of ~24.9 +/- 0.2.
>
> I then sent Tony the link to the ebay auction so he could confirm that
> the piece that he had analyzed was indeed the piece that I had sent
> him. He did.
>
> I purchased my end-cut from Bryan Scarborough (IMCA), who purchased it
> from Michael Cottingham, who purchased it from Greg Catterton (IMCA),
> who purchased the stone with Carl Esparza from the finder.
>
> Carl told me the following story over the phone:
> He was contacted "out of the blue" by someone hunting in the Mifflin
> strewn-field. According to Carl, the finder stated that he thought
> there was a "conspiracy against him," because no one would offer him
> more than $5/g. and he believed his finds were worth more than that.
> So, according to Carl, he then offered the finder $10/g, and a deal was
> struck.
>
> But...the finder asked that he not be paid via paypal or wire
> transfer; he wanted cash mailed to a P.O. Box.
>
> So, Carl mailed the money to the P.O. Box and the first of two 'Mifflin'
> stones was over-nighted to him the next day. It should be noted that
> Carl included Greg Catterton as his partner in this deal, and Greg
> sent over several hundred dollars to help pay for the stones.
>
> Unfortunately, as Carl said over the phone, his old computer recently
> died, so he lacks the name and email address of the finder, as well as
> the number/address of the P.O. Box to which he sent the money. Carl
> is also unwilling to share the bank receipt from the transaction which
> would prove that he did make a large cash withdrawal for the stones.
> I asked Carl for the finder's phone number, but he told me that he had
> recently tried to call the finder, himself, only to find that the
> number had been disconnected.
> He was unwilling to share the number with me, regardless.
>
> On the phone, Carl suggested that his source had likely ripped him
> off, and he said that he believed that it was the reason why he had
> been asked to send the money untraceably, as he did; Carl described
> the situation as a "typical scam."
>
> He also suggested that the stones *might* be from an unrelated fall --
> or could be the result of Mifflin being an 'Almahata Sitta sort of
> fall.'
>
> I can't disprove either of those ideas, but they are unlikely for the
> following reasons:
>
> 1) Almahata Sitta is a unique event in the history of meteoritics.
> Different lithologies have been observed in many meteorites, but to
> have individual stones of completely different and unrelated meteorite
> types falling separately is unique. Out of the 1,238 accepted
> observed falls in the meteoritical bulletin, only one has exhibited
> individuals that have consisted of different meteorite types (for
> example, H + L, Ureilite + EH, etc).
>
> And it's not that we haven't been looking for similar events; with
> each and every fall, multiple stones are analyzed, and the simple fact
> of the matter is that they are always similar...with *one* exception.
>
> So, Almahata Sitta is an exception. How much of an exception? 0.08%
> of meteorite falls are like it. Less than a tenth of a percent.
> Possible...but extremely unlikely. We also have to wonder about why
> or how this hunter managed to find the only two H's from the fall that
> were recognized. Over twenty other stones were studied and this
> finder supposedly turned up two or three that were all H's. It's 'funny.'
>
> The other possibility that Carl advocated is that the stones may actually
> have been found in Wisconsin -- and they may be part of a new fall that
> somehow slipped under the radar. He initially suggested that they were
> from the fireball widely seen across the Midwest on May 10th, but, at the
> time, I had paypal records from Greg that stated that he had sent Carl the
> money for the stones as early as April 24th.
> So we ruled out that possibility..
>
> But, I agree; the stones could theoretically have come from a
> different fall. The end-cut that I bought showed no visible signs of
> weathering. No oxide, no anything. Given the weather in and around
> Mifflin at the time of the fall, we can assume that the stones were
> picked up within a week or so of having fallen. No AMS reports of
> anything in the region for the given timeframe doesn't disprove
> anything since meteorites often fall without much ado, but...two falls
> in the same place *at the same time?*
> Granted, it's possible. Not very likely, though.
>
> And you've still got to wonder about why no one else found any
> H-chondrites while looking for Mifflin. It's not like meteorites were
> laying thickly on the ground. Everyone who found stones out there put
> considerable time into hunting -- and they all found only L5's. So if
> Carl's source were telling the truth, and he did find the stones, it
> seems best to assume that he wasn't hunting in the Mifflin
> strewn-field, because, if he were, he would 1) probably have found
> L5's, and 2) other people would probably have found H's as well.
>
> The conclusion I draw from this is that the truth has become
> well-hidden. What is certain is that I have been refunded by
> Bryan, and I know for a fact that Bryan has been refunded by
> Michael Cottingham, who has in turn been refunded by Greg Catterton.
>
> What I have heard, however, is that Carl has been defending the
> legitimacy of his stones, and is refusing to refund Greg Catterton.
>
> Regardless of whether the material is Mifflin or another meteorite
> (from Wisconsin or from NWA -- it doesn't matter), the simple fact
> of the matter is that the material sold by Carl has been shown to be
> different from how it was advertised, and as such, he should be
> willing to accept its return for a refund. If he wishes to get it
> analyzed and sell it to others as a new meteorite, that is his
> concern.
>
> I am fairly certain that Bryan, Michael, and Greg unknowingly sold the
> material as Mifflin, believing that it was indeed what they sold it
> as.
>
> That is my 2 cents.
>
> Regards,
> Jason Utas
> ______________________________________________
> 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 Sat 07 May 2011 09:39:34 PM PDT