[meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:15:09 +0100
Message-ID: <004a01ce19b4$3a5f39d0$af1dad70$_at_de>

Hi Jason,

you're often too hasty (and somewhat egocentric) to discuss a simple
argumentation soberly.

I say nothing else than
that the advertisings of your material, in particular of your unclassified
alleged NWA 7034-pairing and the unclassified supposed NWA 2975 pairings,
are misleading or at least apt to lead to misunderstandings for the
collectors.

In that sense, that they raise the impression, that your material was
decided by a professional meteorite scientist (in the meaning of the CoE) to
be officially paired to the numbers/meteorites NWA 2975 and NWA 7034
and not only grouped to them by your personal inspection/opinion.
Hence a case of the so-called "self-pairing".

All I suggested to you, was to give the collectors/buyers clear and
sufficient information, that they can make their decisions, whether they
like to buy or not.
Hence to make it clear, that based on your own and personal observations,
those samples you are offering shall be paired to the numbers you refer to.

Why shall this be so difficult?
Here you freely stated, that it was you, who "scrutinized" each sample and
that you decided them to belong to NWA 7034,
because you used a microscope and because you once had a few grams of Jay
Piateks original 7034 inspected. And in the NWA 2975-case, because those
stones would be easily to recognize.

So just write it there.
And leave it to the people, if that kind of analysis is sufficient for them.

(I for my own for instance think, that I haven't that gift and experience to
be able to decide or to identify, whether such tiny microfragments are a
certain meteorite, especially not, when it's a breccia and I have only some
photos, a written description and the remembrance of minor quantities I took
once a short looked at, at hand).

And everything else, your personal views, whether it's useful to let every
planetary get numbered and to give the required share to the
classifiers...is simply not of interest,
as long as you have signed the CoE of the IMCA to obey the formal
requirements given there, to present your material for sale and trade.

As my view could be wrong too,
I invited you - that we write both together a formal complaint, each of us
telling our opinion, and let just that organization independently decide,
whether your presentation of the material fulfills the requirements of that
organization or not.
For me it's necessary that we do that together, cause if I would ask at IMCA
alone, others could misunderstand that as a hostile act from me towards you.
And I think, that's an idea, which meets also your sportsmanship.

Again,
in my opinion and as it happened also in reality with the case of the
interested collector asking in the German forum,
your description and the use of the numbers can be misleading.

Little example,
Here on the list you advertized your material like this:

Title, I quote completely: "AD - Black Beauty"
http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2013/feb/0164.html

Black Beauty is the name attributed and used before for NWA 7034.

And the text of the ad reads as follows:

"Hello All,
I just finished the page for some fragments of the unique water and
soil-bearing Martian regolith breccia paired with NWA 7034 and a few
other stones.
Please see our website for available specimens.

http://www.fallsandfinds.com/page88.php

Thanks!
Jason"

There is standing definitely "paired" with no other constraints,
so that the reader concludes, it has to be a pairing officially ascertained
by a meteorite scientist.
Furthermore, the detailed disclosure of the nature of the material, ("the
unique water and soil....breccia), so much grammar I still know, relates to
the "some fragments" but not to "NWA 7034",
so that the reader must have the impression, those fragments you offer were
properly analyzed by a scientist, who found out, that they are just such a
regolith breccia like NWA 7034.

Or to say it more simple: After I read your explanations of the recent
posts, I have to say, when this AD was no "self-pairing", then I really
don't know, what the term "self-pairing" is about.

Let's go on.
When I go on your sales page,
http://www.fallsandfinds.com/sales.php

I read in your inventory:

' "The Black Beauty" Unique Martian Meteorite '

Hence again the name used for NWA 7034.

And I read:

'NWA 2975, Martian'

(the same I read in the menu side bar, when I switch to the other pages).

Well... do I go on the 2975-page,
I get the bold title: "NWA 2975, Shergottite (Mars)"

And the first sentence:
"These small, complete martian stones are paired with NWA 2975 as well as
its several pairings."

Can't help, if I read "Porsche" I wouldn't expect to find a "Volkswagen
Beetle" - although I know, that both are cars.

You know, Jason, most sellers of such unclassified stuff would use
expressions similar like: "NWA xxxx" likely paired to... or possible
Martian... ect.

Hopefully now you understood, what my concern is.


"and think this is BS because you're attacking me for things I've said to
you in the past."
That sentence I forgive you, due to your youth.
Don't be silly, I see no reason for attacking you personally, because we
have different opinions, to which extent the terrestrial history and
acquired secondary properties justify, that the find rates drop, cause the
private sector shall be excluded from hunting, trading and collecting.

"I know for a fact that"
Probably the same way like you knew it for a fact, that all NWA 7034 but
yours was cut with lubrifiants, even in the research labs or that I would
have been removed from IMCA...

Jason, meteorite collecting is an affair, which requires a certain degree of
accuracy.
There it is often not the best way, to transport hear-say as own factual
knowledge.

Cheers!
Martin




-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jason Utas [mailto:meteoritekid at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. M?rz 2013 09:29
An: Michael Bross
Cc: Martin Altmann; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite

Hello Michael, Martin, Adam,
On the contrary, in this case, scores of stones have been recovered of each
meteorite, and it is no longer reasonable to donate samples of each.

I know for a fact that the both of you (Martin, Adam) haven't analyzed each
and every stone that you've bought that was paired to NWA 2975, so where is
the line drawn? If you haven't analyzed every piece, I'm assuming that you
have some way of analytically confirming the authenticity of every fragment
you've offered, given your statements.

Should I give a lab a single fragment to analyze, and assume the rest are
real because the lab has confirmed it? If that's the case, I would gladly
sell the fragment in the lot I purchased that wasn't paired with NWA 7034 --
as NWA 7034. After all, the lot of fragments would be paired with NWA 7034
via analysis.

Or did you donate samples from each Tissint that both of you bought?
I know at least Martin sold quite a bit of it, but I have the feeling that
he didn't donate 20% of his acquisitions. Adam, I assume you bought some.
Since the stones *could* have been similar finds, why didn't you follow the
procedure with that meteorite?

Or is that meteorite so obviously all 'the same' that it wasn't done?
When can someone decide that?

No, I'm sorry, guys. If it's one or two stones and they could be distinct
meteorites, sure. NWA 2975 was thousands of small stones, and we can all
recognize the fusion crust, shock veins, and maskelynite grains. NWA 7034
and pairings have a brecciated texture just as unique. And since I already
have analytical data confirming the 2975 (and will soon have the data on the
7034 pairing), I get the cheap shots from you dealers, but...eh. I get it.

You're not even questioning the material, either of you. You're just saying
that I need to donate the 20% tax despite the fact that the stones are all
obviously paired to their respective rocks.

I both disagree with you two -- and think this is BS because you're
attacking me for things I've said to you in the past.

Jason

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Michael Bross <element33 at peconic.net>
wrote:
> Dear Martin, Jason and List
>
> First, Martin, I love your highly spirited answer to Jason.
> Jason, as Martin says (and respects you)... you both should smoke the
> "peace pipe"...
>
> I am following this list because I love meteorites, although I am
> barely buying any... maybe I will in the future.
> (I love pallasites... but sooo expensive...)
>
> This is a great back and forth exchange which gets to the core of some
> really technical but real aspect of dealing with classifying, selling
> etc...
>
> So... hope you solve your momentary "quarrel"
>
> Cheers
> Michael B. (a meteorite fan from France)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 6:28 PM
> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
>
>> 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
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> 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 Tue 05 Mar 2013 10:15:09 AM PST