[meteorite-list] Fwd: sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite

From: Art Jones <art.jones_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:34:30 +0000
Message-ID: <5A77F80DB0C1814697D66C2A2BD3977612D92CED_at_BLUPRD0711MB412.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Guys,

I think the horse is way past dead on this one, let's end the thread.

Thanks, Art


-----Original Message-----
From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jason Utas
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:00 PM
To: Meteorite-list
Subject: [meteorite-list] Fwd: sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite

Martin,

Please don't compare my knowledge about meteorites to Jorge's behavior.

Eric nailed this one on the head.

I have a degree in geology insofar as I am currently taking structural geology to complete the degree. For all intents and purposes, I am as qualified as anyone with a relevant degree, having taken mineralogy, petrology, and field-mapping, the only required courses that involve mineral and rock identification. Most scientists who study meteorites, regardless of their degree, would not be qualified to visually pair any meteorites in the fashion that Adam described for his NWA 4880 specimens.

I suppose you could try to hold me to the arbitrary "you don't have the degree on your wall yet," but I'll have it in two months. You're just attacking me ad nauseam. I don't get it.

So, what constitutes an "expert" in such things? Perhaps someone with fifteen years' experience with meteorites? Someone who can look at an auction like Jorge's, see the texture of the crust, and know that it's not right?
Perhaps someone who has done that sort of thing several times? I know there are other folks around who could discriminate between the relevant meteorites in those situations, but...I don't know any well-known 'scientists' who could.

I've put photos of one of the NWA 7034-paired fragments on facebook.
Painfully obvious that it's the same stuff. If you don't think it's enough proof, by all means take it to the IMCA. If they ask me to change the wording of anything, I suppose I'll have to.

Until then, please stop quoting the rules to me. You were removed due to ethics violations, remember? Or did you resign before you could get booted?

I forget.

Jason


On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Uff, slowly you seem to understand, what others smarter than we both
> got already from the 1st posting on.
>
> I say:
>
> - Your material has a different status than NWA 2975 and NWA 7034,
> especially a lower collector's (and therefore monetary)
> value.
>
> - You present your material in a way, which makes a possible buyer
> believe, that they are either part of the very stone(s)
> to which classifiers and the Meteoritical Society designed the
> numbers NWA
> 2975 and NWA 7034, or that they were confirmed by a professional
> meteorite scientist to be paired to them.
>
> - As long as you don't own a degree in that field and as long they don't
> undergo the formal classification and acceptation procedures of the
> Meteoritical Society, you're not allowed to call them formally
> "paired" to these numbers, but you have to make it unmistakably clear,
> that this is only your personal guess.
>
> - It is good business practice to use the same conventions, how to
> label and name such material, like they are established among your
> dealers and collectors colleagues.
>
> - The way you present and describe your material breaks the binding
> rules of the International Meteorite Collectors Association, to which
> you agreed to abide as a member.
> In particular those, quoty quote:
>
> "If members wish to sell or trade meteoritic specimens, then those
> items must be 'actually and exactly what is claimed.'
> (Merriam-Webster-Dictionary) Our members agree to adhere to the
> highest standards of meteorite identification and proper labelling practices."
>
> (...)
>
> "I agree that it is the sole responsibility of each member to
> accurately describe meteoritic material for sale, trade or other
> related transactions without providing any misleading or false information."
>
> and especially (...)
>
> "I agree that unclassified 'meteorites' purchased on eBay or other
> avenues from unknown sellers might not be meteorites. I will not sell
> or trade any meteorites I may have found (or any questionable
> meteoritic material) unless I first obtain verification from a meteorite expert."
>
> And especially:
>
> "Verified but unclassified material should be specified as such.
> Meteoritical Society guidelines will prevail in the circumstance of
> meteorite naming and pairing"
>
> (- mean point, therefore the brackets, would be, to remind you, that
> for you the way that Mr. Jorge "authenticated" his pseudo-Chelyabinsk
> wasn't sufficient - but nothing else did you with your Martians, i.e.
> to trust your source and to inspect them personally. There is the
> danger for you, to loose credibility in attacking others..)
>
>
> And see,
> Especially the last point regarding the Code of Ethics of IMCA makes
> it so comfort for both of us, cause we don't have to discuss, whether
> those procedures are necessary or meaningful or which properties of
> your material made you think to be able to verify it or whether evil
> Martin doesn't like your nose or whether your material is authentic
> ect.pp.
> that's all not of interest,
>
> of interest is, if you fulfill the formalities the IMCA set for you
> (and the standard of the MetSoc and the standard among collectors,
> dealers, hunters,
> researchers) in appraising your material.
>
> To me it seems not so.
> To you all seems alright.
>
> And the comfort thing for us is,
> we don't have to decide that, but we can leave it to that
> organization, to decide.
> So that none of has to be tempted to suppose personal motivations in
> that question.
>
> That's why I asked you, whether you'd like to ask IMCA together with
> me about that case.
>
> But so far, I got no "o.k." neither a "no" from 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: Mittwoch, 6. M?rz 2013 02:08
> An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite-list
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
>
> Martin, All,
>
> Personal jibes aside...
>
> Certainly -- I'll let others decide if this is enough information, and
> they're more than welcome to buy a sample to have it tested. I have
> no doubt that everything I'm offering is authentic, but everything I
> offer is of course backed by a full money-back guarantee. One that I
> will actually honor.
>
> I find it perhaps most amusing that you're not even saying that the
> samples I'm offering aren't paired with NWA 7034 or NWA 2975. If you
> are well familiarized with meteorites, I'm certain that you can tell
> that they're paired as well, from the photos alone.
>
> An analysis wouldn't tell you as much, nor would it prove the
> authenticity of most of the fragments that I am offering. Only a
> visual examination would do as much, unless you advocated polishing a
> side of each specimen and analyzing each one individually -- but such
> a burden of proof has *never* before been asked of any meteorite dealer.
>
> NWA 7034 and pairings are not just a breccia, as you describe them.
> The general texture of the breccia, as I have said before, is unlike
> any other meteorite or rock that I have ever seen in a geology or
> petrology class here at Berkeley. The angular, yet very fine-grained
> nature of the breccia is reminiscent of a few lunar meteorites that I
> have seen, but is generally much more homogeneous and contains much
> more shock-darkened fine-gained matrix.
>
> In short, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You don't seem
> to be questioning the authenticity of the material I"m offering. In
> fact, all you seem to be saying is that I should donate 20% so that I
> will analytically prove that one of fragments I purchased is indeed
> paired with NWA 7034 (or NWA 2975) -- despite the fact that this would
> say nothing about the authenticity of the other fragments (something
> I've mentioned several times, but that you have ignored repeatedly).
>
> You don't even address the issue of Tissint or other NWAs that
> apparently do not require laboratory testing in order to deem
> meteorites "paired." For some reason, you're singling me out for these two meteorites.
>
> I'd like to hear about why that is. After all, have you noticed the
> "self-paired" NWA 2995 on ebay, currently offered by a European dealer
> (or at least there as of a week or so ago)? It looks authentic to me
> (and is relatively cheap, to boot) so I have no problem with it.
>
> I think that's where we differ in opinion. Ultimately, I value
> authenticity highly and trust my judgement, which has been confirmed
> by analytical work on numerous occasions. So, it's good enough for me.
>
> And it beats blindly selling 15 or so fragments of something as "real"
> just because one specimen has been analyzed. Though I expect data on
> the
> 7034 pairing soon enough (another fact you continue to ignore), so I
> really don't get what your point is. It doesn't take 20% of a
> meteorite to confirm a pairing, and the 2975 I'm offering was
> confirmed to be the same age and to share the same exposure history
> via argon dating. Per your analogy, they're a Porsche as much as any other Porsche is. Same stuff.
>
> Getting tired of saying the same things again and again.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Martin Altmann
> <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> 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 Fri 08 Mar 2013 04:34:30 PM PST