[meteorite-list] Lots of Gold and Meteorites on Heritage Auctions
From: Bigjohn Shea <bigjohnshea_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:16:02 +0100
"Self-pairing is a slippery slope. Allowing laymen/dealers/Moroccans to classify their own stones opens up the entire meteorite collectable sector to fraud."
Hence my condition that the seller needs to be "reliable". A subjective term, yes, but it is impossible to formally pair every stone. If that were the expectation from collectors then very little material would change hands... Also, that is the slippery slope we live on. The only slope we live on. More on this below...
"Collectors deserve to know what they are getting and how much by weight is really available."
Black Beauty sells high because it's an interesting classification, not because of low TKW... Low TKW alone is not a great motivating factor for collectors.
"Unfair trade practices are at an all-time high when "dealers" fail to report accurate weights and number of stones."
Report to who? Report by who? I can't call up the MetSoc and say, "Hey I found ten more pieces of BB. Add these 80g to the TKW." It doesn't work that way. Not every specimen can come in form of an 11.53kg single mass with no pairings... ;-) If I want to formally pair ten pieces as paired to the original BB, all ten of them need to be studied, and have a classification written for them. What if 9 of them weigh less than 4g? Who's going to sacrifice 20% plus another 1g for a thin section plus cut loss of those 9 specimens weighing less than 4g that they paid 500$/g to a Moroccan merchant? Apply that same logic to every other DCA worldwide and you'll need a workforce of scientists that cannot exist, all trained to handle the load of pairings.
We don't live in the reality where every piece of meteorite that should be formally paired can actually get formally paired, and I doubt we ever did or ever will. We live in the reality where buyers and dealers are responsible for deciding whether or not they are really buying BB (or any other specific classification) when they are buying a specimen that hasn't been formally paired. If they can't do that, then they should only buy from people who they consider trustworthy.
Stepping off my soapbox...
Have a good one.
Sent using the mail.com mail app
On 11/3/17 at 10:51 AM, Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list wrote:
> Self-pairing is a slippery slope. Allowing laymen/dealers/Moroccans to
> classify their own stones opens up the entire meteorite collectable
> sector to fraud. One just needs to see the damage it created with
> Martian meteorites a few years ago when collector confidence was at an
> all-time low in regards to material from Mars.
> Collectors deserve to know what they are getting and how much by weight
> is really available. "Black Beauty" is an example of where, if the real
> TKW where known, it would fetch only a fraction of its current price.
> The recorded amount doesn't come close to how much is really available.
> Unfair trade practices are at an all-time high when "dealers" fail to
> report accurate weights and number of stones. Self-pairing,
> piggybacking and bypassing all of the protections provided to collectors
> by skipping established classification protocols places the entire
> market in jeopardy.
> On 11/3/2017 5:25 AM, Bigjohn Shea wrote:
> > Sorta feels like we are rehashing an old topic in a new form here...
> > It is common and even justifiable for people to be attached to the concept of formal pairings and classification for specimens, particularly when they pride themselves on selling specimens of a well known classification.
> > However, like most items in the world of collectibles, who you buy from is just as important as what you are buying. If the source is reliable, then the "self-pairing", or "probable pairing" can obviously be trusted.
> > Cheers,
> > John A. Shea, MD
> > IMCA 3295
> > Sent using the mail.com mail app
> > On 11/3/17 at 3:34 AM, Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list wrote:
> >> How could it possibly be the main mass when it is claimed to be part of
> >> the NWA 8455 "clan" which consists of 15 names under its many pairings?
> >> The single NWA 8455 stone was reported to weigh 2,814 grams which would
> >> make it the current "main mass" of this pairing group.
> >> This also doesn't explain why much more than 3 complete stones reported
> >> under the La'gad pairing have been placed on the market. The TKW of this
> >> pairing was supposed to be only 338 grams yet this amount has been
> >> greatly exceeded.
> >> It appears unclassified (self-paired) stones have been placed on the
> >> market using the La'gad nomenclature. There are many keeping track of
> >> what is being offered.
> >> Adam
> >> On 11/3/2017 12:40 AM, Robert Verish via Meteorite-list wrote:
> >>> Thank you, Peter, for posting again (for a?2nd time)?the link to the MBD entry for the La'gad meteorite.
> >>> It was a simple, but polite, way to point out that all of the questions that have been asked about this meteorite have their answers in that entry.
> >>> It shouldn't be necessary, but now that the dust-up has settled,?I feel compelled to clear away any lingering?misconceptions:
> >>> there is no question, this is the La'gad meteorite
> >>> there is no question who the classifier is, nor what is?the classification
> >>> there is no question who found this meteorite, or where?it was?found
> >>> there is no question who owns this meteorite
> >>> there is no question at all about the provenance of this meteorite
> >>> there is no question that this is the main-mass of the La'gad meteorite.
> >>> The stone in the auction weighs 171grams and has had a sample cut from it, other wise it would weigh 186.24grams. This matches the MBD entry.
> >>> Having the stone called-out in the MBD and having it be the main-mass, and having the type-specimen be from that mass, is a premium for collectors.
> >>> Having the coords recorded in the MBD and having a name (like La'gad)?and not a number?is a premium for collectors, as well.
> >>> Taking everything into consideration, this?Lunar would be a positive addition to?any collection.
> >>> Bob V.
> >>> ----------------------------------------------
> >>> On ?Thursday?, ?November? ?02?, ?2017? ?06?:?18?:?45? ?PM, Peter Marmet via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
> >>> Adam Hupe wrote via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>:
> >>>> La'gad doesn't show up in the Meteoritical Bulletin. What institution or scientist examined this exact specimen or is it unofficial or self-paired?
> >>> https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=63189
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Peter
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and 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 our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and 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 our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Received on Fri 03 Nov 2017 01:16:02 PM PDT