[meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:20:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CABEOBjJO=qwbjDwbT=vRExh6dvA-P-zxaLLisiX98hoN0qWxOA_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello Martin, All,

No, no, no, and no.

I do not directly refer to the NWA 7034-paired material on my website
as NWA 7034. I merely state that it is paired material. In the case
of 7034, I scrutinized even the smallest fragments and volunteered a
fragment for destructive analysis here at school. One of the
fragments I received was not the same material as NWA 7034, and it is
set aside. Admittedly, the sample for work is not 20% of the weight
of the lot of fragments. But , since I'm not self-assigning an NWA
number, the rules have been followed.

"Standard practice" would dictate that I donate 20% of the lot of
fragments to science, which would not necessitate cut samples from
every fragment I have. If I didn't know what I were doing, and
donated a ~2 gram fragment from the ~10 gram lot, most of the smaller
pieces *could* be terrestrial crap, but the meteorite would be
analyzed, approved, and you would (I assume) not be questioning it.

While you may not examine prices carefully, a few weeks ago, the
standard price for NWA 7034 was $20,000-30,000 per gram for pieces
less than a half gram or so. Only pieces in the gram+ range were as
little as $10,000 per gram.

I started my pricing at $10,000 per gram and went down to $5,000 per
gram for larger pieces. My prices were a fraction of the advertised
price for these stones, and unless other dealers have dropped their
prices by ~50% or more, my prices are still lower.

So, yes, my specimens are priced at a fraction of what other specimens
are (or were) priced at. I haven't looked around in the past week or
so, but I assume that's still true. Since I paid just over five times
as much per gram for this material as I have for any other meteorite
from NWA, I think that's fair.

Why donating 20 grams or 20% of the material would enable me to raise
prices by 50% to 300% is beyond my comprehension, though.

I donated a fragment of the NWA 2975 lot to destructive research at UC
Berkeley; it was mechanically destroyed, and the maskelynite crystals
were removed for several Ar dating runs (which did agree with the
conclusions reached by other dating methods for NWA 2975).

Of course, since those stones could also have come from different
locations, in theory, I would need to cut or break each one to confirm
it, right? Even the ones that weigh 0.1-0.2 grams.

By and large, I try to be reasonable with such things. Where do you
draw the line between a large find like Taza or NWA 869 and something
like NWA 2975? NWA 801? Each of these meteorites are now examples of
large finds with hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals on the
market. As such, I thought NWA 2975 would be a fine name to use.
Everyone knows it, the stones are easily recognizable, and there is
already much of it in labs waiting to be studied.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/mmc/NWA2975.pdf

I accurately describe TKW's to the best of my knowledge and describe
things as fully as I can on my website so that there is no potential
for misinformation.

The vast majority of our stones are individually analyzed. The only
stones on the website that have not been analyzed -- yet, that I would
be willing to say have an official number on our website -- are NWA
2975. It's too common and easily recognizable to bother.

Regards,
Jason

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Martin Altmann
<altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> no offense, but only a remark.
> You're always pretty fast, when it's about blaming sellers to be dishonest
> or fraudulent.
> In my personal opinion that doesn't fit directly well together with some
> offerings on your webpage.
> For instance some of the Martians,
> there it is not directly clear for the reader,
> whether the specimens, which you reckon to be paired to "black beauty" - NWA
> 7034 are parts of the original stones, which were numbered or whether they
> will be still classified and will receive an own NWA number or whether they
> were told by a scientist to be paired and remain unnumbered or whether it's
> your personal opinion based on your experience.
>
> Same to some extent with the obviously unclassified stones, where you use
> the number NWA 2975 (which was one single stone) in the menu side bar.
>
> In my eyes that is problematical.
> It seems to be a classical "self-pairing", which should be a no-go for
> IMCA-members.
>
> But especially it's somewhat not so fine for the not yet so experienced
> collectors,
> as they often are not aware, that such unclassified stones will have later
> in case they want to swap or trade them once, do have a remarkably lower
> collector's and trade value - thus a lower monetary value than their
> officially recognized and numbered comrades.
>
> Neither the latter is evident for the na?ve beginner, if he reads your
> prices.
> The unclassified ones, which you relate to NWA 7034 cost around 10,000$/g on
> your pages and also the supposed NWA 2975-pairing are not different in price
> than the specimens sold by more professional collectors and dealers, who
> took the time and costs to get their share of that meteorite properly
> classified and numbered.
>
> I think, it would be more respectable and fair towards the collectors and
> laypeople (and to your seller colleagues), if you would make more
> unmistakably clear, that those stones are possibly paired to the numbers you
> give there,
> based on your personal opinion as a non-scientist
> and perhaps to adjust the prices. (for the rookies, unclassified
> self-guesses have always to be cheaper than official numbers from the
> Bulletin, because, se above, they do have a lower value in the usances of
> the meteorite scene and because they have lower costs for the seller, cause
> for a classification you have to supply the institute with a share of 20% or
> 20grams of the meteorite for free and sometimes you have to pay a part of
> the classification costs too).
>
> And last but not least, that would give more weight to your words, when you
> doubt the reliability of other sellers in public.
> (Take for instance the case now, where it seems for you not enough
> authentication,
> when the seller of the probable pseudo-Chelyabinsk told, that his source
> assured, that they are authentic. - with the 2975 and 7034 you did just the
> same, didn't you?).
>
> As told, no offence intended,
> only a suggestion for an improvement.
>
> (Remark to Uruacu vs. Campo. Uruacu has also much more troilite blobs than
> Campo).
>
> Best!
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von jason
> utas
> Gesendet: Freitag, 1. M?rz 2013 05:32
> An: Meteorite-list
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
>
> Hello Adam, All,
>
> Actually, Uruacu does appear to be distinct from Campo del Cielo.
> Uruacu appears to be a much older meteorite that has weathered in different
> conditions, and many individuals show cohenite when cut -- a mineral I have
> never seen in Campo del Cielo. Generally speaking, Campos run the full
> range from freshly-fusion crusted to rusty lumps, and everything in-between.
> But, Campo fell within the past ~5,000 years, so we're talking about rapid
> weathering in a wet environment (also why it's a ruster). Uruacu fell in a
> drier area, and most individuals exhibit a much more uniform covering of
> shale that does not readily flake off due to rusting. They seem to have
> fallen much longer ago, and are generally more weathered due to the fact
> that they've been around for longer. Uruacu generally resists rusting
> better.
>
> It would be like comparing Sikhote Alin to Henbury. No Henburies I know of
> rust, but, by and large, they're not as fresh as most Sikhotes. But some
> Sikhotes appear to have fallen into swampy areas and look pretty bad -- and
> rust. It's hard to mix the two up.
>
> The trouble is that I've also seen Campos sold as Uruacu, which complicates
> things. Uruacu is a very old fall. Even some reputable dealers have been
> selling specimens of "new Campo" (crust,
> regmaglypts) as Uruacu. Very different. I assume this is due to dishonest
> suppliers.
>
> There's a stunning, fairly large Uruacu for sale at the moment. Not mine,
> but I wonder if this will bring it out of the woodwork.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> > From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at yahoo.com>
> > Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
> > To: Adam <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > Isn't Baygorria another meteorite with a fake provenance? Basically a
> > cleaned up Campo with a delaminated section protruding after a
> > not-so-careful makeover. I would just tell him to seek first aid so
> > he doesn't catch the dreaded Lawrencite disease.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Randy Korotev <korotev at wustl.edu>
> > To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:41 PM
> > Subject: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
> >
> > I recieved a well prepared letter from a fellow with a question that I
> > can't begin to answer. Maybe someone on the list has seen this kind
> > of thing before.
> >
> > He bought a Baygorria (Iron, IAB complex) from a dealer 3 years ago.
> > He picked it up recently to find a metal protrusion sticking out of
> > the thing that was sharp enough to prick his thumb.
> >
> > Here's a jpg of his scanned photo.
> >
> > http://meteorites.wustl.edu/baygorria.jpg
> >
> > What's happened here?
> >
> > Randy Korotev
> > St. Louis
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> >
> > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> >
> > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sat 02 Mar 2013 03:20:50 PM PST