[meteorite-list] [IMCA List] Martin Goff's Out Reach

From: Robert Verish <bolidechaser_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:09:32 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <584395110.103876.1416816572311.JavaMail.yahoo_at_jws106124.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Good Morning Michael,

Thanks for taking the time to compose your excellent explanation. It gives not only newcomers to the meteorite market, but all of us, a better appreciation of the perils of pairing (not to mention self-pairing).

With best regards,
Bob V.

 

> On Sunday, November 23, 2014 8:51 PM, Galactic Stone & Ironworks via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> ______________________________________________
>
> 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 Mon 24 Nov 2014 03:09:32 AM PST