Makes an interesting discussion Rhett. Always worth airing views on these
things I think.

As you say there will always be some who will accept an unclassified rock
into their collection without question. I would hope that eventually when
it comes to the importance that specimen might have, right or wrong, then
it would have to go through some wiser and more experienced researcher or
collectors who would recognise it one way or the other through their
experience or analysis. I think though on balance that the scenario that
has lead to this discussion is healthy, in that the huge amount of NWA
material turning up does get offered through the met list and many other
popular pages that many scientists, dealers and collectors peruse
regularly.

I see posts at all levels discussing new material on offer which then finds
it's way eventually to classification and surprises everyone...sometimes
scientists and researchers more so than the NWA dealers. In my early days
of collecting I visited many research establishments where scientist
specialised in classification and yet had rarely handled any large
specimens...just small slices for thin section work/analysis. In recent
years I have had many discussions with researchers about the huge numbers
of large finds and been able to facilitate handling such. There are still
many however who rarely see and handle the huge variety of meteorites that
keep appearing these days.

The education about meteorite characteristics works both ways and now the
NWA dealers have access to the internet much more they in turn learn a huge
amount about the characteristics of certain types and classifications and
they regularly amaze me how good they are at predicting what a
classifiaction will be...in many cases specimens that many other "experts"
in the west would struggle with. For sure the more you handle the more you
are able to have an educated guess at what might be what. I was very happy
that the three most interesting finds out of sixty meteorites we found on
one expedition were identified in the field by me as a possible very
weathered CV3, a ureilite, and an L3 without any cutting or windows. They
were the first we sent for classification which confirmed exactly my
initial notes.

Now when it comes down to more difficult specimens these days I feel like a
newbe again compared to the NWA dealers and nomads who regularly contact me
with photos of specimens which I would have said were wrongs myself. I find
many are often right once the pieces go for analysis. They do have the
advantage usually of knowing the circumstances of the finds which helps
confirm it to be a likely meteorite. That is not to say that there are also
many offering material that is likely terrestrial...or at least asking for
help to decide if it is terrestrial or not. That is where is becomes very
difficult unless there is fusion crust or good meteorite
characteristics...and the answer is to just reply saying that it is too
difficult from a photograph and only analysis will confirm anything. The
next stage is then even more difficult as researchers time is so limited
then getting a terrestrial looking stone looked at seriously becomes almost
impossible....although as I was saying earlier there are so many new
achondrites coming to light surprising everyone then more avenues are
opening up as some are willing to risk their time in order to find
something unique.

There are now many trusted, very experienced NWA dealers and hunters that
have a proven record of finding and predicting what unusual material might
be. These people are widely known within the active members of the
meteorite community that attend the shows, join in many forums and
specialist pages with a multitude of unusual meteorites making an
appearance before and after classification with further discussion then
involving some of the leading researchers and classifiers. Many of the
leading characters from NWA now work directly with these classifiers
missing out the dealers or at least finding out exactly what they have
before marketing to dealers. I find becuase there is a reputtation to keep
up then there is a lot of mutual trust between those individuals and
scientists or dealers and collectors. Specimens are regularly sent without
payment with a gentleman's agreement that the agreed deal is honoured if
the material turns out as described. Indeed that's exacly what happened
with the 1.3kg Lunar individual in my collection which was pretty much
unrecognisable as a meteorite, covered in red soil. The seller in NWA was
convinced it was lunar even though I would have dismissed it. I had nothing
to loose in the agreement and he was correct once it got it analysed and
classified which is when the deal was then completed.

All in all I find the current offering of "possible meteorite types" across
the met list and much wider a huge benefit to meteoritics rather than a
"danger" because some collectors have them in their collection and can't be
bothered to get the analysis done. In fact I find most collectors are
unlikely to take things at face value and are very keen to find out exactly
what they have...many then generously share some of that material with
others/researchers etc to confirm what they have.

G

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:42?PM Rhett Bourland <rhett.bourland at gmail.com>
wrote:

> As much as I trust a lot of people in the meteorite world, I do fully look
> at any rock that hasn't been analyzed as suspect unless the chain of
> ownership can be shown from the person who got the rock classified to my
> hands.
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:07?PM Graham Ensor <graham.ensor at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> just an addition...an example.
>>
>> Would people buy one of these Allende meteorites or similar from other
>> dealers pages which I think we are all pretty confident are Allende's...but
>> I'm pretty sure these were just fond in the same strewnfield and have not
>> been analysed to make sure.
>>
>> https://impactika.com/product/allende-carbonaceous/
>>
>> Graham
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:46?PM Rhett Bourland <rhett.bourland at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Honestly, just because a meteorite is found in a known strewn field
>>> doesn't automatically make it part of the same fall.  Twink Monrad found
>>> Golden Rule and Golden Mile in the Gold Basin strewn field.  Calcalong
>>> Creek was originally sold as part of the Camel Donga strew field.  NWA482
>>> was originally thought to be a eucrite.  The folks who go to Antarctica
>>> each year go back to the same areas to find more because of the way
>>> glaciers move.
>>>
>>> When talking about how not getting everything classified is bad for
>>> science, that isn't just about common material being sold as something much
>>> rarer.  The real danger is rare and scientifically important pieces being
>>> sold as something more common.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 10:22?AM Graham Ensor <graham.ensor at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see no problem in anybody saying a probable meteorite is unclassified
>>>> but is likely to be a certain type. It is no different on line or throught
>>>> the met list than traveling through Morocco or visiting a show, looking at
>>>> hundreds of unclassified probable meteorites, and discussing the likelyhood
>>>> of that or what type they may be with the seller. That's the way many
>>>> dealers work to find unusual types that then get taken further to be
>>>> officially classified. I see no fault with a NWA seller working in this
>>>> way. The The fault comes if buyer does not then get it analysed or
>>>> classified and tries to sell it on as an authentic classified meteorite.
>>>> There are also thousands of meteorites amongst the hundreds of collections
>>>> that came through NWA dealers from established large strewnfields which sit
>>>> there as examples of a variety of falls/finds and have never been cut and
>>>> classified. Just found as part of a new fall/find as it's impossible for
>>>> every piece to be classified....examples are Chelyabinsk, Ribbeck, Erg
>>>> Chech 002, Tissint, Holbrook,...the list is endless. I suspect very few
>>>> collections consist of specimens where each individual has been classified
>>>> and most have individuals of those I've mentioned (or others) that have
>>>> never seen a scientist. If you are new to meteorites or have very little
>>>> experience then this is probably not the avenue for you to buy for a
>>>> collection unless you are happy to go to the trouble of getting analysis
>>>> done.
>>>>
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 2:32?PM Rhett Bourland via Meteorite-list <
>>>> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Educated guesses aren't classifications.  Nobody can do that.  I've
>>>>> got close to a couple hundred pieces in my collection that I've built up
>>>>> over the past 25 years.  I own classes of meteorites that most museums
>>>>> don't even have because the museums that I got them from told me where the
>>>>> other pieces were.  I can safely say that I have handled and seen even more
>>>>> in that time.  The IMCA got started in my living room. I wouldn't even call
>>>>> something a meteorite unless it got tested.  As Anne Black recently said,
>>>>> people guessing what they have and presenting it as such is nothing but
>>>>> harmful for the science and commercial trade of these rocks and that woman
>>>>> has seen and handled stuff that I can only dream of.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 3:37?PM <mendy.ouzillou at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rhett,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our North African meteorite family has earned the right to make
>>>>>> educated guesses, especially after they have proven themselves to be
>>>>>> reputable dealers AND have examined the specimen. They have handled far
>>>>>> more meteorites than most dealers and collectors. There is no surprise that
>>>>>> they, and Mohamed in particular, can tell the difference between a CO and
>>>>>> another type of meteorite. Mohamed was fully transparent and clearly stated
>>>>>> that it is unclassified. There is nothing inauthentic about the posting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no ulterior motive in responding to this post other than
>>>>>> desiring respectful discourse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mendy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Meteorite-list <meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com> *On
>>>>>> Behalf Of *Rhett Bourland via Meteorite-list
>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, July 20, 2024 9:53 AM
>>>>>> *To:* Benzaki Mohamed <kemkemexpedition at gmail.com>
>>>>>> *Cc:* Meteorite List <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite unclassified
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's unclassified and yet you're calling it a CO?  That doesn't sound
>>>>>> very authentic to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 10:17?AM Benzaki Mohamed via Meteorite-list <
>>>>>> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all members hop have a good day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Everyone interested will be interested by a largeste co carbonaceous
>>>>>> unclassified please contacte  me.all beste.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240723/e24db14d/attachment-0001.htm>