[meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:28:19 +0100
Message-ID: <001701ce18fd$ad538ed0$07faac70$_at_de>

Hiho Jason,

not at all, I haven't any likely NWA 7034 at hand (nor would I have original
NWA 7034 at hand, to compare), neither any leftover of NWA 4766 an official
NWA 2975 pairing, whereof all stones were looked through by a meteorite
scientist.
(and anyway, how could you think that about me, tststs shame on you. Anyway
I was out of biz for more than a year now, due to a disease and it will take
a while until my little star will raise again to sparkle between the stars
of the splendid Northern constellation of the FC Meteorite House).

(I hadn't cost you a customer, it was his free decision.
He asked in the forum, I told him, that also for me your description is not
100% clear
and that he should ask you about the status of your material.
And as he was a newer collector, I told him the difference between
unclassified and classified material in the view of a collector. Told him,
when his concern is only about the material itself, he could take advantage
of your offer (as I trust in your abilities), but if he wants to get the
number out of the media, it would be normal to take in account a higher
price and to buy from a seller offering original NWA 7034,
and that this with decision nobody could help him, but that he has to make
it.)

Hey, but now back to the beef.
Jason, I have I an idea, which is also more comfort, as we don't have to
argue then anymore.

What do you think about the idea, that we both in your case file a formal
complaint to the IMCA?
Formal complaint, cause else IMCA doesn't occupy themselves with a case.
I mean, they must know better than we, how to interpret their CoE.
And then we wait for their decision.

No worries, there will be no harm to you.
Either they will say, correct your descriptions and commend how to do so and
ask you to avoid something similar in future
Or they will say, the complaint is baseless, it's o.k. like you did it (and
you won a crate of beer from me at the nextTucson show).

Shall we?
Martin





-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason
Utas
Gesendet: Montag, 4. M?rz 2013 16:42
An: Meteorite-list
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite

Ahhh, now I get it. Before I could have seen it as simple concern.
Now I'm guessing you purchased some more material paired with NWA 7034, hope
to sell it in the future, and are attacking my material accordingly.

So now I'm not allowed to have my own opinion? Wow, Martin. I heard from
some others (including a well-regarded scientist) that my last email raised
some good points. You've got something else coming if you think I'm going
to start taking your word as gospel, especially given your history.

So you're the fellow who cost me a buyer by telling him that he should pay
three times more for a chip from an analyzed rock. Well, shoot.
Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to have your back next time.

Re: everything else/the IMCA:

Authenticity is something I take very seriously, and not just with other
peoples' rocks. I'm as critical of my samples as I can be, and donating a
~2 gram fragment from my lot of NWA 7034-paired material would not guarantee
the authenticity of the smaller fragments. Only close scrutiny -- or
probing each one individually would do that, and that sort of analytical
requirement has never been in place for the IMCA or elsewhere.

I've already pointed out that I skirt directly referring to the stones as
NWA 7034 on the website, so your rehashing the "you're using someone else's
number" is getting old. I do say these fragments are paired. They are.
You also disregard the fact that pieces are being worked on and that, even
if I had 20% of my lot of fragments analyzed, per convention, most of the
fragments wouldn't be directly tested.
You wouldn't be attacking my credibility, and I could sell as many
similar-looking terrestrial rocks as I wanted -- in peace.

So your rules don't ensure authenticity in this case. What does ensure
authenticity is the fact that I looked at each fragment with a microscope,
searching for those small, angular white clasts unique to this meteorite.
It's very distinctive: I've taken mineralogy and petrology and never seen a
terrestrial rock like it. It does resemble a few lunar meteorites grossly
but is generally much more fine-grained.

Just as the IMCA doesn't require each dealer to analyze NWA
869/801/978/753/etc., a stone from this find of many should be exempt from
individual analysis. If you're going to go so far as to require each dealer
to analyze his or her own material, I don't see why you wouldn't require
that every chip or fragment that they buy then must be analyzed. Never mind
the fact that this lot of fragments came from the exact same source as some
of the larger stones that have since been put on the market.

It simply doesn't make sense. But, I've already said this. You just
ignored it. Same goes for most of the rest of my last email.

I'll let you know about the results from the analysis here at school if
you're so curious. As I said, we already confirmed the NWA 2975
analytically, so forgive me if I don't take the time to respond to your
repetitive points.

Never mind the fact that I probably shouldn't be taking advice on how to
stay in the IMCA from someone who got himself removed as you did.

Jason

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
wrote:
> Yes, Yep, Yeah Jason!
>
> You forget always, how old I am.. A more proper answer would have been:
> "Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I'll correct it."
>
> I remember that in my active time in the IMCA-board such cases like
> yours were the most common complaints filed against members. The
> solution isn't a big thing, usually the board commended to the
> indicted to use those simple
> terms:
> An "unclassified" in a prominent position and "likely" and "possible".
>
> You know, you have to give to the potential buyer the proper
> information as a base for him to make his decision.
> Your stones are unclassified according the guidelines of the
> Meteoritical Society and the Code of Ethics of the IMCA, Regarding the
> latter you have to indicate that.
>
> Whether a collector or buyer concedes to you sufficient experience and
> competence to identify your samples by your own correctly, you have
> simply to leave to him.
>
> I wouldn't have wrote that, if not already a case had happened,
> showing that your advertizing of the possible 7034 pairing can be
misleading.
> After the fuss in media around NWA 7034 a not yet so experienced
> German collector found your offerings and was convinced to get a true
> part of the original NWA 7034 stones.
>
> You've to put yourself in the position of the various collectors, not
> all are content with the intrinsic properties of the material itself,
> to some it adds a lot to such a sample, to print out the articles from
> the media and to be able to show his specimen to others while pointing
> on a photo in these articles, being able to say, from this very stone my
sample was taken from.
>
> Also you will confess, if asked by a collector, which stone he shall
choose:
> That one from an unnumbered group, not listed in the Bulletin, of a
> likely pairing of NWA 2975 at 500$/g or that one from a grouplet
> officially classified and with an own number designed at 500$/g,
> you'll commend him the latter, as you know the techniques and the
> customs of meteorite collecting.
>
> So that collector asked in a forum, what the members would think about
> your offer.
> (I wished, that someone else than me would have given an answer to
> him, (but the others were inert.) cause now I gave the opportunity to
> a member there to continue to knit his favourite legend, that the
> incarnate evil strikes again to annihilate the world's dealership)
>
> Well and I answered him, that he should ask you again, whether your
> share will be officially classified or not.
> And told him, that if for him more the material itself is important,
> he can buy it, as I rely in your abilities to recognize it, though if
> he cares for later swaps, sales ect. that, what I had written in the last
posting.
> And that's up to him, to decide.
> (Another member added an understandable opinion, that if a meteorite
> costs 10k$ a gram, the collector could expect, that it had been
> properly classified).
>
> Btw. meteorites do not travel only in space, but from collection to
> collection.
> How easily that NWA-numbers you use in your description can later slip
> on the label, mislabeling the specimen.
>
> Anyway,
> if a classification would make your material more expensive, is not of
> interest for a collector neither whether a material is too common and
> recognizable for you personally (an argument which that Jorge could
> have used too) He needs only the proper information about the status
> of the material to be able to make his decisions.
>
> And anyway,
> Whether meaningful or not, these are the rules, which you signed to
> obey, when you joined that club of IMCA.
>
> Well in that sense, I think, that club would certainly advise you to
> change your advertizing in the manner I explained to you.
>
> 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: Samstag, 2. M?rz 2013 21:21
> An: Meteorite-list
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
>
> 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
> ______________________________________________
>
> 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 Mon 04 Mar 2013 12:28:19 PM PST