Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

Hello Everyone,

Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find
themselves.

It's hard to disagree with *common sense*.  Unfortunately, Mark has already
made at least a few pretty bad *common sense* pairing mistakes that I'm
pretty sure have put misrepresented material into circulation.  Like this
one , where Mark decided that an
unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another dealer's published CR2.  And this
one , where Mark decided that a CV3 was
paired with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous chondrite.
More on these meteorites below.

Mark mentioned some of our past conversations.  I agree: they were pretty
crazy, but I wouldn't say it's because of anything *I* said.  I guess it's
a good thing I saved them all, and can share them with you.

Let's get right to it.

In mid-January of 2023, I let John Humphreys know, in private, that some
“Erg Chech 003" "CR2” slices he was offering on eBay looked to be swapped
with a ~CV3.  John's one of the few dealers I would trust to handle an
issue like that honestly and quickly.  Given the texture of the stone and
its abundant CAIs, it couldn't have been a CR2.  Not possible.  A photo of
the material speaks for itself : a real
specimen of Erg Chech 003 is on the right.  To his credit, John immediately
pulled the slices he'd listed.  I had no way of knowing it at the
time, but Mark
had sold John this unclassified meteorite as the published CR2 Erg Chech 003
.  Unfortunately, by the time I'd messaged
John about the problem, some amount of the ~CV3 had already been sold on by
a few of the dealers who routinely distribute Mark's material, and you can
still find some of those unclassified ~CV3 slices in circulation as CR2s /
Erg Chech 003
.
Not great.

Had I said nothing, there's no reason to think anyone else would have
caught the misrepresented material, and the rest of that ~CV3 would have
been sold as the CR2.  Mark keeps telling people I'm often wrong, but...he
admitted to the problem in private and refunded John
.  Hm.

I would add: I don't blame John Humphreys for what happened with the fake
Erg Chech 003.  It's not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to ID a
carbonaceous chondrite by sight, especially based on just a few small
slices.  Someone classifying and selling new, unclassified meteorites has a
greater burden of responsibility than someone who thinks they're buying a
documented meteorite from a reputable dealer.  Ultimately, Mark was the one
who put those specimens into circulation labelled as something they
weren't.  It should have been safe for John to trust him.

This "Erg Chech 003" ~CV3 is also a perfect example of Mark's ‘*rules for
thee but not for me*.’  Mark argued in his email that Benzaki Mohamed's use
of Jason Whitcomb's NWA number was different from Taza, Jikharra 001, etc.,
because Whitcomb's CK was "*probably a single person classification with
low total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is
different from huge finds*."

Well, let's look up Erg Chech 003
.  How many tonnes
is it?  It has a TKW of...just 1.1 kilograms.  Oh.  That's...really small.
And it's owned by...two dealers who often collaborate with each other.  Not
Mark.  So...not only did Mark use someone else's DCA number from a small
find -- he screwed up the pairing when doing it and put misidentified
material into circulation.  ...I guess "common sense" rules only apply to
everyone else.  Not Mark Lyon.

Let's turn the clock back to January 2023 for a moment.  When I first
notified John about the issue with the fake Erg Chech 003, I had no idea
the material had even come from Mark.  How could I?  Erg Chech 003 wasn't
even "his classification."  I didn't know it yet, but John had forwarded my
messages to Mark, letting him know I was the one who had raised the issue.

I'd never put two and two together before, but, after reviewing our
correspondence, it's like a switch flipped within about a week of my
messaging John about the issue.  As far as I can tell, Mark didn't like the
idea of being 'corrected,' and that's when he decided that he didn't like
*me*.  After a few unwarranted, aggressive interactions on Facebook
that same month, Mark went after me in private.  It was *weird*.  He called
me a bunch of names, and a liar a dozen or so times.  I responded by simply
calling out his empty insults and asking him what he thought I'd lied
about.  He never did give me an answer.  After a few days of that strange
back and forth, I think it became apparent to him that he wouldn't get a
rise out of me.  He cracked and wrote this:

https://imgur.com/a/mVVnmF1

I don't feel the need to address his scattershot insults: it's clear that
Mark knows even 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

Hello Jason,

As long as material is described accurately, I don't care what you do.  I
only butted in here because it annoyed me to see you attacking a Moroccan
seller who is probably selling accurately paired material, while you’re
openly doing the same thing with other meteorites.  Glass house + throwing
stones, not cool.

I'm saying that it *should* be fine for you to buy and sell HaH 346 and
Jikharra 001 as those meteorites as long as you've accurately IDd them.
But not if you're going to tell other people they can't do the same thing.
That's the rub.

Your points -

1 & 4)  Why does it matter where you got your HaH 346?  It didn't matter to
you where Benzaki got his NWA 15758.

Your posts didn't address the origin of Benzaki Mohamed's CK in any way, or
whether or not his material is paired with NWA 15758.  Based on everything
you've shared here, you don't know or care about whether or not Benzaki's
material is paired with yours.  Your concern is "your NWA number" and
protecting that investment. I can empathize with that, but your #1 and #4
bullet points don't agree with your actions:

Did you ask Benzaki where his material had come from before you sent that
public complaint?  No.  Did you confirm that it came from a different
finder, the same place, or a different place?  No.  When it came to
'protecting  your NWA number,' none of that mattered.  Sure, the onus is on
him to show it's paired, but you didn't give him a chance.

You were preemptively trying to avoid any possible / probable pairings to
'protect your investment.'  I understand your motivations, and think many
dealers would take your side, but it's ethically questionable, at best.
TKWs affect meteorite values, and if you're aware of significant pairings,
(main) masses, etc., and you hide that information from your customers,
that's dishonest.  Sure, new things can turn up, but what if a dealer sold
you a "main mass," and you later found out that they were aware of a larger
specimen all along?  Would you care?  Would you be annoyed?  What would you
think?

...Is what you're doing here any different?

You asked me what I would do.  I sold some NWA 15364 (nakhlite) a while
back.  When describing it, I said: "Northwest Africa 15364 is one member of
a large pairing group including, but not limited to: Hassi Messaoud 001,
Bir Moghrein 002, Qued Mya 005, NWA 13368, NWA 13669, NWA 13764, NWA 13786,
NWA 14369, NWA 14962, and NWA 15200.  The published total known weight of
these finds is approximately 4.3 kilograms.  It is probable that additional
pairings will be approved in the future."  That was ~as accurate as I could
describe the meteorite's pairings and TKW, to the best of my ability.  I
spent a bit of time looking at the analytical data for each of them in the
Bulletin, finding photos of each of them, and trying to make sure I got it
right.  I guess I could have omitted mentioning the pairings, to make my
pieces seem more rare?  Would that be honest?  I'd say no.  But a few
dealers are definitely doing that with some of those pairings...

It hurts collectors.  Last week, I saw someone comment on a Facebook post,
excited because he'd purchased multiple pieces of the above nakhlites.  He
thought he'd bought pieces of different meteorites, not pieces of paired
stones.  He seemed disappointed to learn otherwise.  It's great for the
sellers, not so good for collectors.  And it's not a new issue.  The first
similar instance I remember was in an ancient met-list thread back in the
early 2000s, when someone tried to sell a meteorite paired with NWA 869.
NWA...900ish, if I recall...  It's probably been 15 years.  Hmmm...

http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0989.html

http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/1120.html

http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0961.html

My email doesn't go back that far, had to find it on Google.  NWA 900 is
another 869 pairing, but the problem was NWA 904.

I've never really sat down and thought about it, but a significant part of
the NWA market is based on dealers pleading or feigning ignorance about
pairings and TKWs to collectors.  It's ~accepted conduct, and it’s
totally unethical.  Dean Bessey called it out back in 2004, and nothing's
changed.

2 & 5)  We're talking about scientific descriptions of rocks.  Little rocks
are rocks.  Big rocks are rocks.  Size doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, larger finds and falls are widely distributed, tend to get
less scrutiny, and get mislabeled often.  Those three big meteorites you're
using as examples are some of the biggest problems, because they're such
large finds.  Sure, it can be fun: I couldn't tell you the number of
interesting things I've pulled out of lots of "NWA 869" over the years.
And you should keep an eye out for the fresh L3s in shipments of HaH 346.
Many of them still have skid-marks, and there's nothing quite like a W0
type-3.  If you're on Facebook, you've probably seen the multi-kg lots of a
totally new brecciated eucrite being 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

Hello Jason,
To be consistent, you should remove the HaH 346 and NWA 869 specimens you
have listed for sale on your website.  Those classifications were submitted
by other dealers; your stones are unclassified individuals from DCAs with
no evidence of their find locations, etc.
On your "featured" page, you also have a specimen listed as a "likely
Jakharra 001 Pairing."  Similar issues aside, relying on that standard, it
should be okay for Benzaki Mohamed to call his specimens "likely NWA 15758
pairings."
Regards,
Jason

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:09 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

> Thank you Benzaki Mohamed for swiftly reaching out to me.  I appreciate
> your attention to this matter.  All is good.
> Best regards to everyone,
> Jason Whitcomb
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 PM <
> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>
>> Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> meteorite-list-ow...@meteoritecentral.com
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (p...@tucsonmeteorites.com)
>>2. Re: Very sad news (Ruben Garcia)
>>3. Re: Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 (humboldt bay jay)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700
>> From: 
>> To: 
>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
>> Message-ID: 
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>> Thursday, Mar 14 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: HAH 346
>>
>> Contributed by: J?r?me de Creymer
>>
>> http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/14/2024
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:17:06 -0700
>> From: Ruben Garcia 
>> To: bernd.pa...@paulinet.de
>> Cc: Meteorite Mailing List 
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
>> Message-ID:
>> > jxhjti60uojwdgvdoreuf4jfjd7paim...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hi Bernd,
>>
>> I've know John for a very long time. This is very sad indeed. Thank you
>> for
>> posting this.
>>
>> Ruben Garcia
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 4:03?PM bernd.pauli--- via Meteorite-list <
>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear List,
>> >
>> > It is my sad duty to inform you that John Blennert has passed away :-(
>> >
>> > John, rest in peace!
>> >
>> > Bernd
>> > __
>> > Meteorite-list mailing list
>> > Meteorite-list@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/20240313/55acab68/attachment-0001.htm
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:53:43 -0700
>> From: humboldt bay jay 
>> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> caat9en4eebof8m_4p5anuoo9wo9+_qqv1e9-1mbjdnj6yvh...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Benzaki Mohamed,
>> Since you have never reached out to me about my classification, Nwa 15758
>> CK6, I politely request that you do not use this name. I invested time and
>> resources into having it analyzed and if you wish to sell your material as
>> a named meteorite I suggest you do the same. Thank you in advance.
>> Jason
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:29?PM <
>> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
>> > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> >
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> > meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com
>> >
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>> > meteorite-list-ow...@meteoritecentral.com
>> >
>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> > than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
>> >
>> >
>> > Today's Topics:
>> >
>> >1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (p...@tucsonmeteorites.com)
>> >2. Meteorite carbon (Benzaki Mohamed)
>> >3. Very sad news (bernd.pa...@paulinet.de)
>> >4. Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS
>> >   2014-01-08 

Re: [meteorite-list] Another in the curious tektite series

[jason utas via Meteorite-list]

Those are skin splits, not contacts.  Its surface had cooled to form a
skin, interior was still molten / plastic.  See Nininger & Huss (1967):

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.157.3784.61

http://www.tektites.co.uk/stretch.html



On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:19 AM Thomas Harris iMac via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

> I always enjoy the irregular shapes in tektites because the standard
> dumbbells, teardrops and spheroids are exactly that, standard.
>
> This is a 5 cm irregular or fragment-form Australasian tektite from Viet
> Nam with what appears to have smeared indentations from low speed
> contact(s), presumedly with other equally soft-skinned tektites.  This is
> problematic because the through-body re-heating above glass temperature and
> plastic deformation don’t happen with aerodynamic heating and ablation.  At
> the very least the skin of this tektite seems to have been reheated after
> solidification, retaining fine surface texture outside of the smear
> channels.  If this is ascent-phase after solidification, that is a large
> displacement from the source location for collision with multiple other
> tektites.  If this is descent-phase, why are tektites on converging
> trajectories after the better part of an hour or more to solidify before
> reentry?
>
> The highly ‘platy' coarse morphology relative to any spheroidal protomorph
> makes the formative process quite puzzling.
>
> When the Indochina region is considered as probable source for this distal
> impact ejecta glass, it directly disagrees with a first principles
> suborbital analysis of ablated tektites, which shows the source region must
> like across eastern North America per Harris (2022) and Davias, Harris
> (2022).
>
> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FqenhEGuGrY
>
>
> Thomas “Tim” Harris
> Email: thsharr...@icloud.com
> Engineering Scientist
>
> Brooklyn NY USA
> 718 344 6016
>
> Web:
> Google Scholar T. H. S. Harris
> 
> Research Gate 
>
>
> Cintos.org  Survey: US LiDAR
> by M. E. Davias
> https://cbaysurvey.cintos.org
>
>
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Modern Burnishing

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

The photo of Haig shows concave depressions, not bulbous lumps. It’s not
good photo perspective.

The closest visual match to this stone would be something like Patos de
Minas (the octahedrite), but comparing a relatively fresh desert stone with
fusion crust — to a fissured, decomposing iron from a much more wet climate
doesn’t make sense.

Consensus when this NWA surfaced on Facebook was that it was a broken
oriented stone, ‘creatively’ altered to disguise the damage.

Without a real forensic assessment, I would not feel at all comfortable
calling it natural.  It may technically be “art.”  I don’t think the
bidders in these auctions know or care either way.

Jason

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:42 PM Paul Gessler via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

> Want everyone's opinion / on this highly unusual morphology.
> I don't doubt it is a real meteorite at all just that one side looks
> altered
> or is HUGELY UNIQUE
> Christies is currently selling it and gives a cryptic explanation for its
> shape as "Modern burnishing"
> What the hell does that mean exactly?
> they also mention it could be naturally ventifacted.???
>
> Either way I have never seen anything quite like it in the meteorite world.
>
> Anyone else have an explanation ... please chime in on this.
>
>
> https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/deep-impact-lunar-rare-meteorites/evoking-sculpture-ken-price-exotic-meteorite-morphology-nwa-13203-38/82821
>
> Thanks
> Paul Gessler
>
> __
>
> 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@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@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

Adam,
Since you keep suggesting that it was Greg's doing, and not yours...

"The Hupé Collection" self-paired a medium and a fine octahedrite.
Different bandwidths, different structures, different types of
inclusions.  One was a fresh, sculpted, fusion-crusted iron.  The
other was a round, weathered lump.  The photos on ebay were enough to
tell they were different.  "The Hupé Collection" said they were the
same.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=17885

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=33524

These mistakes are surfacing on the POD, from well known collectors who
*trusted you.*  With "Hupé Collection" labels that are *wrong.*

That is indefensible.

You never even reached out to Bernd and the other buyers to let them
know of the mistake, after you knew of it?  Or did Bernd miss your
email?

In response, you're "accusing me" of...making 100% certain that my
samples were what they were, via SEM.  Most of the material that I
didn't keep went to labs, and they were presumably grateful to get NWA
7034 at less than a third of what other sellers were charging.

None of my material was misrepresented.  Not one milligram.

Pointing out that I *got it right* isn't exactly a good rebuttal.
Especially when you're okay with other scientists doing nothing more
than *eyeballing* your own stones to claim they're paired.  I
literally did more to verify my NWA 7034 than you did to verify your
NWA 1110.

Oh, and the Nom. Com. essentially did away with type specimen
requirements for paired DCA meteorites some time ago.

Read the rules.  Section 7.1 (g).

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/docs/nc-guidelines.pdf

If you want to get a new piece of [anything paired] approved, all you
need is data.  No type specimen is required.

You say that self-pairing is bad.  I point out that you messed it up.
In response, you point out that I paired some material correctly, as
though it's somehow the same or worse.  And you push "rules" that
no one follows -- and that don't even exist.

It's still -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Jason


On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list
 wrote:
> Spoken by a true pioneer in self-pairing and piggy-backing,
>
> Anybody for any self-paired and piggy-backed Black Beauty?
>
>
>
>
> On 6/25/2018 1:40 AM, Jason Utas via Meteorite-list wrote:
>
> Please note that the slice pictured is NWA 3200, not NWA 860. Someone made a
> mistake and “self-paired” two completely different iron meteorites.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 1:00 AM Paul Swartz via Meteorite-list
>  wrote:
>>
>> Today's Meteorite Picture of the Day: NWA 860
>>
>> Contributed by: Bernd Pauli
>>
>> http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=06/24/2018
>> __
>>
>> 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@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@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@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@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

Please note that the slice pictured is NWA 3200, not NWA 860. Someone made
a mistake and “self-paired” two completely different iron meteorites.

Jason


On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 1:00 AM Paul Swartz via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

> Today's Meteorite Picture of the Day: NWA 860
>
> Contributed by: Bernd Pauli
>
> http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=06/24/2018
> __
>
> 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@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@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: Lots of Gold and Meteorites on Heritage Auctions

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

We've had this discussion before, Adam.  You're gaslighting.

The pairing rules are very clear and can be read in section 4.2 (a) and (b)
of this link: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/docs/nc-guidelines.pdf

Key statements:
1) "a single (collective) name may be given in cases where fragments fit
together or similar-looking fragments are found within a few meters of each
other"
2) "Two or more newly discovered meteorites in dense collection areas may
be considered paired with each other or with another formally named
meteorite if there is overwhelming evidence, including geographic data that
are consistent with the meteorites being part of a single fall."

When you buy a bag of "NWA 1110" from a dealer in Morocco, you have no idea
where they're from or if they were actually picked up in the same place.
Every single fragment needs to get its own NWA number and needs to be
analyzed.  Type specimen, etc.  Unless the fragments physically fit
together and/or you have an in-situ photo showing them sitting together on
the ground, you're breaking Nomenclature Committee guidelines.

You can't just "pair" a pile of stones by looking at them, or by having
someone else look at them.  You can have them all analyzed and show that
they're internally *identical.*  Doesn't matter.  They all need their own
NWA numbers and type specimens.

And don't just think this applies only to planetaries.  You bought a 20
kilogram sack of "NWA 869?"  Every single stone needs to be cut and
analyzed if you're going to sell it as NWA 869.  Except...you can't even do
that.  Even if they are all analyzed and all fall in the range of L3.8-6,
like NWA 869, each fragment will still need its own NWA number because you
still don't have any proof of where they were found.

Those are the rules, and you've broken just as many of them as anyone
else.  These are guidelines written for scientists, by scientists.  This is
how stones are recovered and dealt with in places like Antarctica.  Every
detail of a stone's recovery is meticulously recorded, and every
(sub-gram!) fragment is analyzed.  The only people I know who have followed
such guidelines are the hunters in DCAs like Skip Wilson, who actually
record every single stone they find.

You -- and every other collector and dealer -- have played by different
rules.  Even the IMCA has bought into a different set of rules that protect
dealer interests: they say that you can't use "another meteorite dealer's
NWA number," but once you get a stone analyzed, you're allowed to
"self-pair" anything you want to that analysis, essentially without
scrutiny.  This has led to a fair amount of misrepresented material in
circulation, from "NWA 869," to the mix-and-match Martian and Lunar
pairings of recent years.

Nomenclature Committee guidelines haven't been followed since NWA
meteorites were in the single digits, by you or anyone else.  As John Shea
said before, pairing material at one's discretion is only as reliable as
the dealer doing it.

Jason







On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

>
> Thank you for the last word and the concern for my reputation.  These
> piggy-backing and self-pairing debates have gone on long before you became
> in interested in meteorites.
>
> My advice, since you are a member, is to read the IMCA bylaws which are
> all about authenticity and adhering to Meteoritical Society rules which do
> not support piggy-backing and self-pairing.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/4/2017 10:20 AM, Martin Goff wrote:
>
>> Adam,
>>
>> I am more than comfortable with my reputation and what I have
>> contributed to the world of meteorites. I don't need to blow smoke up
>> my arse or have the need to constantly have others prop up my fragile
>> ego. As for your opinion of me, well it's quite obvious I could not
>> care a jot what your opinion is, it is meaningless to me as it is to
>> most! (a fact that is backed up by all of the messages I've had in
>> private :-)) And as for calling you out,  whether on this list or on
>> Facebook, how you can state that that is 'behind your back' just shows
>> your levels of paranoid delusion! This list and facebook are both
>> public forums and I am more than happy to speak my mind on either!
>>
>> And as for the rest of your garbled message, if it was actually
>> coherent, readable and understandable then I might be able to
>> reply..
>>
>> But, as Johannes says folk are here to talk about meteorites so I
>> won't bore them by responding further. However I'm more than sure that
>> you'll want to have the final word and cement your reputation as
>> someone who is losing the plot by clambering onto your rickety soapbox
>> and ranting further whilst dribbling into your bib..
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> Martin Goff
>> www.msg-meteorites.co.uk
>> International Meteorite Collectors Association (IMCA) member #3387
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 Nov 2017 16:50, "Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list"

Re: [meteorite-list] From the dailybruin.com - Couple loans unexpected find to UCLA Meteorite Gallery

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

Some additional photos:

(1) http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DSCN8994.jpg

(2) http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DSCN8992.jpg

(3) http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DSCN8991.jpg

(4) http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DSCN8990.jpg


As it is currently displayed (through glass):

(L) http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/IMG_2949.jpg

(R) http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/IMG_2950.jpg


Jason

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Art via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

> Great news for UCLA ... Marvin, John, Nick, and Jason mentioned in this
> article about the Eltrich's awesome find.
>
>
> http://dailybruin.com/2016/06/27/couple-loans-unexpected-find-to-ucla-meteorite-gallery/
>
> -Art
>
> __
>
> 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@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@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list