[meteorite-list] [IMCA List] Martin Goff's Out Reach
From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:50:42 -0500 Message-ID: <CAKBPJW8n774xOpxggJNpbEheBVV=26-Cd1vLFVCZDxK66b0XKQ_at_mail.gmail.com> Hi Robert! I am glad to have this conversation, because I think it can shed some light on the issues of provenance and authenticity for newcomers who do not yet understand how the meteorite market works. First, I want to emphasize for motive for asking the question was not to show-up or start a feud of any kind with the IMCA. My motive was defend the honest non-members of the meteorite dealing world who are implicated every time a statement is made that suggests IMCA-sourced meteorites are more reliable than non-IMCA meteorites. In fact, I do sincerely wish the IMCA success because they are the only game in town when it comes policing the meteorite market - the market is surely better for their efforts and I would not put my past personal issues with them over the integrity of the market as a whole. So to the IMCA I say - rock on. About authenticity : I chose NWA 869 as an example not because it is easily self-paired, which it is. You are correct in stating that the vast majority of instances when NWA 869 is offered, it is indeed NWA 869. I used it as an example because it is probably one of the most widely-distributed meteorites on the market, with the possible exception of Campo del Cielo. While the success rate of pairing NWA 869 stones is quite high, the overwhelming amount of self-pairing that goes on in regard to 869 is problematic in and of itself. We all agree that self-pairing should not be the rule of the land, yet it happens with great frequency with 869. By law of averages, there should be some mistakes - 869 offered as unclassified and unclassifieds offered as 869. (Although technically any self-paired meteorite that is not analyzed in a lab is "unclassified") Newbies may not realize how easily and accurately 869 can be self-paired by an experience eye. They just see that meteorite all over the market and the usual newbie question will arise - how do I know it is a meteorite at all? Or, how do I know it is NWA 869 and not something else? Newbies who are wondering such things, might come to the conclusion that such a meteorite is better purchased from an IMCA source, when in fact, almost all sources of 869 engage in non-scientific self-pairing, so therefore an IMCA-sourced 869 is no better or no worse than a non-IMCA-sourced 869. Well, the IMCA seller is obligated to refund the buyer's money if an authenticity issue arises later, right? Maybe. If they value their IMCA membership, they will refund the buyer's money with no questions asked. If they don't give a hoot about their membership, they may resign and walk away from the IMCA without issuing a refund to the buyer - this has happened before. Really, the issue of giving refunds is not an IMCA issue, it is the hallmark of an ethical seller, regardless of their affiliation with any group. Ok, Battle Mountain was a bad example. I did not consider the limited distribution and superior documentation of the fall. Let's strike that one and just use the example of a non-NWA fall (pick one) versus a fresh-appearing NWA find. If an unethical seller offers a NWA find stone as a more-valuable fall, how can any person or group "guarantee authenticity" short of full lab analysis? If a question arises, the stone will need to be microprobed. The IMCA does not own a microprobe, although many members certainly have access to one at various institutions. Let's say the suspect stone is microprobed and is revealed to be a different petrologic type than the stone was being offered as. For Battle Mountain, it is an L6. If the suspect stone is revealed to be an H5, then it is obviously not Battle Mountain. Mystery solved and the suspect stone is not Battle Mountain. The seller in that case is either a scammer or an unwitting dupe. But, what if the microprobe reveals the suspect stone is indeed an L6. The problem becomes more complex. Ratios of target minerals can be compared and if they are wildly-different, then the mystery is solved. But what if the suspect L6 has mineral ratios within the standard for deviation or the margin of error for the fall in question? Then what? Thin-section analysis? Or....? Guaranteeing "authenticity" opens up a very deep rabbit hole. Perhaps a better motto would be "satisfaction guaranteed" - and even that can be problematic if the member in question resigns and runs without giving a refund. Would the buyer be satisfied with such a result? Like I said before, I think the IMCA is a good idea and serves a good purpose in the community. However, they should be careful when issuing statements such as "authenticity guaranteed" because determining authenticity requires extensive analysis by reputable scientists in a lab stocked with millions of dollars worth of high-tech equipment. Best regards and Happy Huntings, MikeG -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone ------------------------------------------------------------- On 11/23/14, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com> wrote: > Maybe Michael's questions are rhetorical, but I haven't read any answers or > replies. > After all, in the past others have asked these same questions, and still > never any satisfactory answers. > > But, allow me to answer the question of "how do you guarantee > authenticity?", by stating the obvious: > authenticity is established through well-documented provenance. > > Which leads me to question why chose Battle Mountain and NWA 869 to use as > examples to prove your case. You couldn't pick two meteorites that would be > less supportive of the point you are trying to make. > I'm not saying that there aren't too many NWA chondrites being self-paired > to NWA 869 for marketing convenience, but this is one that dealers somehow > have maintained a respectable "batting average" with their guessing. > Besides, how many complaints are there? Who's expectations are not being > met when they purchase an uncut chondrite labeled as "NWA 869"? > > Battle Mountain! BaM is the best example of a well-documented, recent fall. > It has the shortest chain of provenance! It fell late 2012; it's hunted > and recovered by collectors and dealers; it's sold by those same dealer's > and BINGO, it's in your collection. Any questions? If so, don't have very > far to go to get answers. That's called "provenance". > Who is "guaranteeing authenticity"? A quick search of "Completed" eBay > auctions shows only one meteorite dealer (Mendy) having sold a 3.9g > partslice of BaM, where he clearly shows his source, the finder, by way of > the original label. That's another example of provenance. > > But just because Michael used bad examples doesn't mean that the point he is > trying to make isn't valid. In fact, I think the majority of us agree with > him in principle. > Yet, asking questions such, "How do I really know that it is Battle Mountain > and not one of hundreds of NWA L6 look-a-likes?" is very counter-productive, > to say the least. Given that other customers can ask those same question, > it's akin to pouring gasoline over oneself and then volunteering to light > the ceremonial Burning-Man bon-fire. > To satisfy my curiosity, I found a link to images of "hundreds of NWA L6 > look alikes": http://tinyurl.com/ksdmulw > Now, compare those to these images of BaM (L6) : > http://tinyurl.com/oukblbh > > Wow, never expected that my answer to a rhetorical question would be this > long. > Anyway, I should thank everyone for giving my this opportunity to talk once > more about Battle Mountain. > It has prompted me to relinquish 2 of my BaM specimens, and I've uploaded > them onto eBay. > If it makes everyone happy, I WON'T "guarantee authenticity"! > But I'm still going to guarantee your satisfaction, or your money back! > (Isn't that really the only thing that IMCA can require of their members? > ;-) > Bob V. > > On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:01 AM, Galactic Stone & Ironworks via > Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > > >> >> >>Hi Jim and List, >> >>Please do not take this as a knock at the IMCA, because it is not >>intended that way, and I certainly do want to experience the old >>"shoot the messenger" syndrome again. >> >>How exactly does anyone "guarantee authenticity" in regards to meteorites? >> >>Let's look at a typical example that happens on a daily basis in the >>meteorite community : >> >>If I am offered a specimen of Battle Mountain by a dealer. How do I >>really know that it is Battle Mountain and not one of hundreds of NWA >>L6 look-a-likes? Regardless of whether or not the seller is an IMCA >>member, how can one guarantee authenticity of any specimen, unless >>that particular specimen has been examined and analyzed by a reputable >>scientist? >> >>I do not know of any dealers who have every batch of material they >>acquire tested at a lab. They use a combination of faith in their >>sources and hand-examination to determine if the material should be >>offered. Sure, new unclassified material is analyzed to have it >>classified and officially approved by Met Soc. But what about NWA >>869? How many dealers have their NWA 869 analyzed prior to offering >>it? If it is untested, then how can one make any guarantees? >> >>Best regards, >> >>MikeG >>-- >>------------------------------------------------------------- >>Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com >>Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone >>Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone >>Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone >>------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >>On 11/23/14, Jim Wooddell via Meteorite-list >><meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote: >>> Hello all! >>> >>> The IMCA has but one purpose, does it not? How can you possibly argue >>> that??? >>> It's for collectors, dealers and sellers....pretty basic mission, >>> Authenticity . Nothing wrong with that! >>> And any kind of outreach by the IMCA very much appears to be a mistake >>> in perception. >>> The IMCA is not responsible for anything it's members do and probably >>> should not take any credit for >>> anything their individual members do as it implies responsibility. >>> >>> Like Gary said, it's up to the individual. >>> I don't think anyone is not supportive of outreach, it's just not the >>> function of the IMCA. >>> >>> REF: >>> http://imca.cc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=14 >>> >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> On 11/22/2014 8:39 PM, Galactic Stone & Ironworks via Meteorite-list >>> wrote: >>>> Ray Watts said : >>>> >>>> "I have been told in the past that out reach is over reach for the >>>> I.M.C.A." >>>> >>>> Whoever said that, has no business being in the IMCA or any other >>>> group that claims to be supportive of education and outreach. Walk >>>> the walk or get the hell out. >>>> >>>> My two cents. >>>> >>>> Also, agree 110% with what Gary said. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> MikeG >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jim Wooddell >>> jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net >>> http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/ >>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> >>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com >>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com >>> https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> >>> >>______________________________________________ >> >>Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com >>Meteorite-list mailing list >>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com >>https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> >> >> >Received on Sun 23 Nov 2014 11:50:42 PM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|