Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
meteorites I may have found (or any questionable meteoritic material) unless I first obtain verification from a meteorite expert. And especially: Verified but unclassified material should be specified as such. Meteoritical Society guidelines will prevail in the circumstance of meteorite naming and pairing (- mean point, therefore the brackets, would be, to remind you, that for you the way that Mr. Jorge authenticated his pseudo-Chelyabinsk wasn't sufficient - but nothing else did you with your Martians, i.e. to trust your source and to inspect them personally. There is the danger for you, to loose credibility in attacking others..) And see, Especially the last point regarding the Code of Ethics of IMCA makes it so comfort for both of us, cause we don't have to discuss, whether those procedures are necessary or meaningful or which properties of your material made you think to be able to verify it or whether evil Martin doesn't like your nose or whether your material is authentic ect.pp. that's all not of interest, of interest is, if you fulfill the formalities the IMCA set for you (and the standard of the MetSoc and the standard among collectors, dealers, hunters, researchers) in appraising your material. To me it seems not so. To you all seems alright. And the comfort thing for us is, we don't have to decide that, but we can leave it to that organization, to decide. So that none of has to be tempted to suppose personal motivations in that question. That's why I asked you, whether you'd like to ask IMCA together with me about that case. But so far, I got no o.k. neither a no from you :-( Best, Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. März 2013 02:08 An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Martin, All, Personal jibes aside... Certainly -- I'll let others decide if this is enough information, and they're more than welcome to buy a sample to have it tested. I have no doubt that everything I'm offering is authentic, but everything I offer is of course backed by a full money-back guarantee. One that I will actually honor. I find it perhaps most amusing that you're not even saying that the samples I'm offering aren't paired with NWA 7034 or NWA 2975. If you are well familiarized with meteorites, I'm certain that you can tell that they're paired as well, from the photos alone. An analysis wouldn't tell you as much, nor would it prove the authenticity of most of the fragments that I am offering. Only a visual examination would do as much, unless you advocated polishing a side of each specimen and analyzing each one individually -- but such a burden of proof has *never* before been asked of any meteorite dealer. NWA 7034 and pairings are not just a breccia, as you describe them. The general texture of the breccia, as I have said before, is unlike any other meteorite or rock that I have ever seen in a geology or petrology class here at Berkeley. The angular, yet very fine-grained nature of the breccia is reminiscent of a few lunar meteorites that I have seen, but is generally much more homogeneous and contains much more shock-darkened fine-gained matrix. In short, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You don't seem to be questioning the authenticity of the material Im offering. In fact, all you seem to be saying is that I should donate 20% so that I will analytically prove that one of fragments I purchased is indeed paired with NWA 7034 (or NWA 2975) -- despite the fact that this would say nothing about the authenticity of the other fragments (something I've mentioned several times, but that you have ignored repeatedly). You don't even address the issue of Tissint or other NWAs that apparently do not require laboratory testing in order to deem meteorites paired. For some reason, you're singling me out for these two meteorites. I'd like to hear about why that is. After all, have you noticed the self-paired NWA 2995 on ebay, currently offered by a European dealer (or at least there as of a week or so ago)? It looks authentic to me (and is relatively cheap, to boot) so I have no problem with it. I think that's where we differ in opinion. Ultimately, I value authenticity highly and trust my judgement, which has been confirmed by analytical work on numerous occasions. So, it's good enough for me. And it beats blindly selling 15 or so fragments of something as real just because one specimen has been analyzed. Though I expect data on the 7034 pairing soon enough (another fact you continue to ignore), so I really don't get what your point is. It doesn't take 20% of a meteorite to confirm a pairing, and the 2975 I'm offering was confirmed to be the same age and to share the same
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Ach Jason, you didn't get the point yet. All you need to do, in my opinion, is to mark your two Martians as unclassified, to replace NWA 7034 and NWA 2975 in your menu side bar and in the titles of your descriptions and ads by NWA , and you can call them possible Martians (or the subtype of these Martians) and likely paired with NWA 2975 and NWA 7034. (And else feel free to write what you want in your descriptions and advertising). That's already all. So they won't be mistaken anymore to be paired by a scientist or classified by a scientist or being a true part of the single NWA 2975 stone or the very lot of stones, which received the number NWA 7034. This is the standard, not I or Adam asks from you, but the IMCA. And like this such cases were handled by IMCA in past. If you don't like that or you think, that it is nonsense, then don't beat me. But then it will be better, that you quit IMCA. And to avoid, that you think, that it's a witch-hunt, I invited you, that we both ask IMCA. (Because I guess, they will tell you quite the same, as I told, if you don't know the IMCA rules yet. - and so you probably will see, that's nothing personal). But I'm asking you for that now for the 4th or 5th time. And still don't know your answer. Although I tried to lure you in, in bidding a crate of beer for the case they won't share my opinion. Best! Martin __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
present your material in a way, which makes a possible buyer believe, that they are either part of the very stone(s) to which classifiers and the Meteoritical Society designed the numbers NWA 2975 and NWA 7034, or that they were confirmed by a professional meteorite scientist to be paired to them. - As long as you don't own a degree in that field and as long they don't undergo the formal classification and acceptationprocedures of the Meteoritical Society, you're not allowed to call them formally paired to these numbers, but you have to make it unmistakably clear, that this is only your personal guess. - It is good business practice to use the same conventions, how to label and name such material, like they are established among your dealers and collectors colleagues. - The way you present and describe your material breaks the binding rules of the International Meteorite Collectors Association, to which you agreed to abide as a member. In particular those, quoty quote: If members wish to sell or trade meteoritic specimens, then those items must be 'actually and exactly what is claimed.' (Merriam-Webster-Dictionary) Our members agree to adhere to the highest standards of meteorite identification and proper labelling practices. (...) I agree that it is the sole responsibility of each member to accurately describe meteoritic material for sale, trade or other related transactions without providing any misleading or false information. and especially (...) I agree that unclassified 'meteorites' purchased on eBay or other avenues from unknown sellers might not be meteorites. I will not sell or trade any meteorites I may have found (or any questionable meteoritic material) unless I first obtain verification from a meteorite expert. And especially: Verified but unclassified material should be specified as such. Meteoritical Society guidelines will prevail in the circumstance of meteorite naming and pairing (- mean point, therefore the brackets, would be, to remind you, that for you the way that Mr. Jorge authenticated his pseudo-Chelyabinsk wasn't sufficient - but nothing else did you with your Martians, i.e. to trust your source and to inspect them personally. There is the danger for you, to loose credibility in attacking others..) And see, Especially the last point regarding the Code of Ethics of IMCA makes it so comfort for both of us, cause we don't have to discuss, whether those procedures are necessary or meaningful or which properties of your material made you think to be able to verify it or whether evil Martin doesn't like your nose or whether your material is authentic ect.pp. that's all not of interest, of interest is, if you fulfill the formalities the IMCA set for you (and the standard of the MetSoc and the standard among collectors, dealers, hunters, researchers) in appraising your material. To me it seems not so. To you all seems alright. And the comfort thing for us is, we don't have to decide that, but we can leave it to that organization, to decide. So that none of has to be tempted to suppose personal motivations in that question. That's why I asked you, whether you'd like to ask IMCA together with me about that case. But so far, I got no o.k. neither a no from you :-( Best, Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. März 2013 02:08 An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Martin, All, Personal jibes aside... Certainly -- I'll let others decide if this is enough information, and they're more than welcome to buy a sample to have it tested. I have no doubt that everything I'm offering is authentic, but everything I offer is of course backed by a full money-back guarantee. One that I will actually honor. I find it perhaps most amusing that you're not even saying that the samples I'm offering aren't paired with NWA 7034 or NWA 2975. If you are well familiarized with meteorites, I'm certain that you can tell that they're paired as well, from the photos alone. An analysis wouldn't tell you as much, nor would it prove the authenticity of most of the fragments that I am offering. Only a visual examination would do as much, unless you advocated polishing a side of each specimen and analyzing each one individually -- but such a burden of proof has *never* before been asked of any meteorite dealer. NWA 7034 and pairings are not just a breccia, as you describe them. The general texture of the breccia, as I have said before, is unlike any other meteorite or rock that I have ever seen in a geology or petrology class here at Berkeley. The angular, yet very fine-grained nature of the breccia is reminiscent of a few lunar meteorites that I have seen, but is generally much more
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Martin, This string is not worthy of your time, my time or the bandwidth. Let people who think they are above the rules hang themselves. It will happen sooner than you think. The case has been made for both sides so now it is time to let collectors decide with their wallets since this is all about saving a few bucks and has nothing to do with science. You can only burn a bridge once and then it becomes unusable unless you are a politician who can spin properly. We all know how well-respected politicians are, not!. Adam __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
. That sentence I forgive you, due to your youth. Don't be silly, I see no reason for attacking you personally, because we have different opinions, to which extent the terrestrial history and acquired secondary properties justify, that the find rates drop, cause the private sector shall be excluded from hunting, trading and collecting. I know for a fact that Probably the same way like you knew it for a fact, that all NWA 7034 but yours was cut with lubrifiants, even in the research labs or that I would have been removed from IMCA... Jason, meteorite collecting is an affair, which requires a certain degree of accuracy. There it is often not the best way, to transport hear-say as own factual knowledge. Cheers! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jason Utas [mailto:meteorite...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 09:29 An: Michael Bross Cc: Martin Altmann; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Hello Michael, Martin, Adam, On the contrary, in this case, scores of stones have been recovered of each meteorite, and it is no longer reasonable to donate samples of each. I know for a fact that the both of you (Martin, Adam) haven't analyzed each and every stone that you've bought that was paired to NWA 2975, so where is the line drawn? If you haven't analyzed every piece, I'm assuming that you have some way of analytically confirming the authenticity of every fragment you've offered, given your statements. Should I give a lab a single fragment to analyze, and assume the rest are real because the lab has confirmed it? If that's the case, I would gladly sell the fragment in the lot I purchased that wasn't paired with NWA 7034 -- as NWA 7034. After all, the lot of fragments would be paired with NWA 7034 via analysis. Or did you donate samples from each Tissint that both of you bought? I know at least Martin sold quite a bit of it, but I have the feeling that he didn't donate 20% of his acquisitions. Adam, I assume you bought some. Since the stones *could* have been similar finds, why didn't you follow the procedure with that meteorite? Or is that meteorite so obviously all 'the same' that it wasn't done? When can someone decide that? No, I'm sorry, guys. If it's one or two stones and they could be distinct meteorites, sure. NWA 2975 was thousands of small stones, and we can all recognize the fusion crust, shock veins, and maskelynite grains. NWA 7034 and pairings have a brecciated texture just as unique. And since I already have analytical data confirming the 2975 (and will soon have the data on the 7034 pairing), I get the cheap shots from you dealers, but...eh. I get it. You're not even questioning the material, either of you. You're just saying that I need to donate the 20% tax despite the fact that the stones are all obviously paired to their respective rocks. I both disagree with you two -- and think this is BS because you're attacking me for things I've said to you in the past. Jason On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Michael Bross elemen...@peconic.net wrote: Dear Martin, Jason and List First, Martin, I love your highly spirited answer to Jason. Jason, as Martin says (and respects you)... you both should smoke the peace pipe... I am following this list because I love meteorites, although I am barely buying any... maybe I will in the future. (I love pallasites... but sooo expensive...) This is a great back and forth exchange which gets to the core of some really technical but real aspect of dealing with classifying, selling etc... So... hope you solve your momentary quarrel Cheers Michael B. (a meteorite fan from France) -- From: Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 6:28 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Hiho Jason, not at all, I haven't any likely NWA 7034 at hand (nor would I have original NWA 7034 at hand, to compare), neither any leftover of NWA 4766 an official NWA 2975 pairing, whereof all stones were looked through by a meteorite scientist. (and anyway, how could you think that about me, tststs shame on you. Anyway I was out of biz for more than a year now, due to a disease and it will take a while until my little star will raise again to sparkle between the stars of the splendid Northern constellation of the FC Meteorite House). (I hadn't cost you a customer, it was his free decision. He asked in the forum, I told him, that also for me your description is not 100% clear and that he should ask you about the status of your material. And as he was a newer collector, I told him the difference between unclassified and classified material in the view of a collector. Told him, when his concern is only about the material itself, he could take advantage of your offer (as I trust
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Jason Stated: I both disagree with you two -- and think this is BS because you're attacking me for things I've said to you in the past. My response: Jason, please leave me out of your immature rants. I certainly have had every planetary pairing examined by a competent scientists and followed proper procedure to get official numbers for entire batches. I stayed away from Tissint other than a personal piece for my own collection. I never offered any because it was tainted by inexperienced dealers from the moment it was found. I tend to stay away from planetary pieces with mass pairings and was not involved with Tissint knowing that emotions, not experience would dictate the market. In the case of NWA 2975 that you refer to, I had around 38 individuals examined by a real scientist, donated the required 20%, paid lab fees and made every stone official under the NWA 4880 nomenclature. Each and every piece was examined by Dr. Irving, a well known real planetary scientist, not a self-proclaimed one. It has been my experience that people that focus too much on the faults of others are usually guilty of what they are accusing others of. Now, please do not try to checker my reputation again. Nobody likes a ta-tel-tale or a snitch, especially when his accusations are unfounded and untrue. Adam __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
As can be seen in the Meteoritical Bulletin, 34 individual specimens were claimed and a full 20% was provided under the nomenclature NWA 4880 even though we suspected it was paired to NWA 2975: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=45804 Here is the link for NWA 1110 which is paired to NWA 1068, same case as previous example: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=17124 I was not involved with marketing Tissint so no references will be provided. Now, that I have responded to these accusation made by Jason, I will not waste any more valuable time defending myself since there is no merit to the charges. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks Adam __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Hello Michael, Martin, Adam, On the contrary, in this case, scores of stones have been recovered of each meteorite, and it is no longer reasonable to donate samples of each. I know for a fact that the both of you (Martin, Adam) haven't analyzed each and every stone that you've bought that was paired to NWA 2975, so where is the line drawn? If you haven't analyzed every piece, I'm assuming that you have some way of analytically confirming the authenticity of every fragment you've offered, given your statements. Should I give a lab a single fragment to analyze, and assume the rest are real because the lab has confirmed it? If that's the case, I would gladly sell the fragment in the lot I purchased that wasn't paired with NWA 7034 -- as NWA 7034. After all, the lot of fragments would be paired with NWA 7034 via analysis. Or did you donate samples from each Tissint that both of you bought? I know at least Martin sold quite a bit of it, but I have the feeling that he didn't donate 20% of his acquisitions. Adam, I assume you bought some. Since the stones *could* have been similar finds, why didn't you follow the procedure with that meteorite? Or is that meteorite so obviously all 'the same' that it wasn't done? When can someone decide that? No, I'm sorry, guys. If it's one or two stones and they could be distinct meteorites, sure. NWA 2975 was thousands of small stones, and we can all recognize the fusion crust, shock veins, and maskelynite grains. NWA 7034 and pairings have a brecciated texture just as unique. And since I already have analytical data confirming the 2975 (and will soon have the data on the 7034 pairing), I get the cheap shots from you dealers, but...eh. I get it. You're not even questioning the material, either of you. You're just saying that I need to donate the 20% tax despite the fact that the stones are all obviously paired to their respective rocks. I both disagree with you two -- and think this is BS because you're attacking me for things I've said to you in the past. Jason On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Michael Bross elemen...@peconic.net wrote: Dear Martin, Jason and List First, Martin, I love your highly spirited answer to Jason. Jason, as Martin says (and respects you)... you both should smoke the peace pipe... I am following this list because I love meteorites, although I am barely buying any... maybe I will in the future. (I love pallasites... but sooo expensive...) This is a great back and forth exchange which gets to the core of some really technical but real aspect of dealing with classifying, selling etc... So... hope you solve your momentary quarrel Cheers Michael B. (a meteorite fan from France) -- From: Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 6:28 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Hiho Jason, not at all, I haven't any likely NWA 7034 at hand (nor would I have original NWA 7034 at hand, to compare), neither any leftover of NWA 4766 an official NWA 2975 pairing, whereof all stones were looked through by a meteorite scientist. (and anyway, how could you think that about me, tststs shame on you. Anyway I was out of biz for more than a year now, due to a disease and it will take a while until my little star will raise again to sparkle between the stars of the splendid Northern constellation of the FC Meteorite House). (I hadn't cost you a customer, it was his free decision. He asked in the forum, I told him, that also for me your description is not 100% clear and that he should ask you about the status of your material. And as he was a newer collector, I told him the difference between unclassified and classified material in the view of a collector. Told him, when his concern is only about the material itself, he could take advantage of your offer (as I trust in your abilities), but if he wants to get the number out of the media, it would be normal to take in account a higher price and to buy from a seller offering original NWA 7034, and that this with decision nobody could help him, but that he has to make it.) Hey, but now back to the beef. Jason, I have I an idea, which is also more comfort, as we don't have to argue then anymore. What do you think about the idea, that we both in your case file a formal complaint to the IMCA? Formal complaint, cause else IMCA doesn't occupy themselves with a case. I mean, they must know better than we, how to interpret their CoE. And then we wait for their decision. No worries, there will be no harm to you. Either they will say, correct your descriptions and commend how to do so and ask you to avoid something similar in future Or they will say, the complaint is baseless, it's o.k. like you did it (and you won a crate of beer from me at the nextTucson show). Shall we? Martin
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Back to the question of sharp protrusions, but from chondrites not irons... Some sharp metal protrusions at Tucson: Handling an OC at Tucson a blade of metal stuck in my hand and drew blood. On closer examination it was apparently a shock melt surface which differential erosion had left sharp and sticking out. I also saw a nice Chergach which was broken on a shock melt surface which looked much like slickensides. Again, the surface was metal. Both are interesting features of the whole rock that are not readily imaginable from cut slices. Cheers, Nick __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Hi Nick, Is the meteorite that drew blood now known as a Human Hammer? Did you get a Hammer tetanus shot? Did you nickname it First Blood? Or just That blood sucking stony #%**#! Cheers, Fred Back to the question of sharp protrusions, but from chondrites not irons... Some sharp metal protrusions at Tucson: Handling an OC at Tucson a blade of metal stuck in my hand and drew blood. On closer examination it was apparently a shock melt surface which differential erosion had left sharp and sticking out. I also saw a nice Chergach which was broken on a shock melt surface which looked much like slickensides. Again, the surface was metal. Both are interesting features of the whole rock that are not readily imaginable from cut slices. Cheers, Nick __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
once a short looked at, at hand). And everything else, your personal views, whether it's useful to let every planetary get numbered and to give the required share to the classifiers...is simply not of interest, as long as you have signed the CoE of the IMCA to obey the formal requirements given there, to present your material for sale and trade. As my view could be wrong too, I invited you - that we write both together a formal complaint, each of us telling our opinion, and let just that organization independently decide, whether your presentation of the material fulfills the requirements of that organization or not. For me it's necessary that we do that together, cause if I would ask at IMCA alone, others could misunderstand that as a hostile act from me towards you. And I think, that's an idea, which meets also your sportsmanship. Again, in my opinion and as it happened also in reality with the case of the interested collector asking in the German forum, your description and the use of the numbers can be misleading. Little example, Here on the list you advertized your material like this: Title, I quote completely: AD - Black Beauty http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2013/feb/0164.html Black Beauty is the name attributed and used before for NWA 7034. And the text of the ad reads as follows: Hello All, I just finished the page for some fragments of the unique water and soil-bearing Martian regolith breccia paired with NWA 7034 and a few other stones. Please see our website for available specimens. http://www.fallsandfinds.com/page88.php Thanks! Jason There is standing definitely paired with no other constraints, so that the reader concludes, it has to be a pairing officially ascertained by a meteorite scientist. Furthermore, the detailed disclosure of the nature of the material, (the unique water and soilbreccia), so much grammar I still know, relates to the some fragments but not to NWA 7034, so that the reader must have the impression, those fragments you offer were properly analyzed by a scientist, who found out, that they are just such a regolith breccia like NWA 7034. Or to say it more simple: After I read your explanations of the recent posts, I have to say, when this AD was no self-pairing, then I really don't know, what the term self-pairing is about. Let's go on. When I go on your sales page, http://www.fallsandfinds.com/sales.php I read in your inventory: ' The Black Beauty Unique Martian Meteorite ' Hence again the name used for NWA 7034. And I read: 'NWA 2975, Martian' (the same I read in the menu side bar, when I switch to the other pages). Well... do I go on the 2975-page, I get the bold title: NWA 2975, Shergottite (Mars) And the first sentence: These small, complete martian stones are paired with NWA 2975 as well as its several pairings. Can't help, if I read Porsche I wouldn't expect to find a Volkswagen Beetle - although I know, that both are cars. You know, Jason, most sellers of such unclassified stuff would use expressions similar like: NWA likely paired to... or possible Martian... ect. Hopefully now you understood, what my concern is. and think this is BS because you're attacking me for things I've said to you in the past. That sentence I forgive you, due to your youth. Don't be silly, I see no reason for attacking you personally, because we have different opinions, to which extent the terrestrial history and acquired secondary properties justify, that the find rates drop, cause the private sector shall be excluded from hunting, trading and collecting. I know for a fact that Probably the same way like you knew it for a fact, that all NWA 7034 but yours was cut with lubrifiants, even in the research labs or that I would have been removed from IMCA... Jason, meteorite collecting is an affair, which requires a certain degree of accuracy. There it is often not the best way, to transport hear-say as own factual knowledge. Cheers! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jason Utas [mailto:meteorite...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 09:29 An: Michael Bross Cc: Martin Altmann; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Hello Michael, Martin, Adam, On the contrary, in this case, scores of stones have been recovered of each meteorite, and it is no longer reasonable to donate samples of each. I know for a fact that the both of you (Martin, Adam) haven't analyzed each and every stone that you've bought that was paired to NWA 2975, so where is the line drawn? If you haven't analyzed every piece, I'm assuming that you have some way of analytically confirming the authenticity of every fragment you've offered, given your statements. Should I give a lab a single fragment to analyze, and assume the rest are real because the lab has confirmed it? If that's the case, I
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Hi Jason, Uff, slowly you seem to understand, what others smarter than we both got already from the 1st posting on. I say: - Your material has a different status than NWA 2975 and NWA 7034, especially a lower collector's (and therefore monetary) value. - You present your material in a way, which makes a possible buyer believe, that they are either part of the very stone(s) to which classifiers and the Meteoritical Society designed the numbers NWA 2975 and NWA 7034, or that they were confirmed by a professional meteorite scientist to be paired to them. - As long as you don't own a degree in that field and as long they don't undergo the formal classification and acceptationprocedures of the Meteoritical Society, you're not allowed to call them formally paired to these numbers, but you have to make it unmistakably clear, that this is only your personal guess. - It is good business practice to use the same conventions, how to label and name such material, like they are established among your dealers and collectors colleagues. - The way you present and describe your material breaks the binding rules of the International Meteorite Collectors Association, to which you agreed to abide as a member. In particular those, quoty quote: If members wish to sell or trade meteoritic specimens, then those items must be 'actually and exactly what is claimed.' (Merriam-Webster-Dictionary) Our members agree to adhere to the highest standards of meteorite identification and proper labelling practices. (...) I agree that it is the sole responsibility of each member to accurately describe meteoritic material for sale, trade or other related transactions without providing any misleading or false information. and especially (...) I agree that unclassified 'meteorites' purchased on eBay or other avenues from unknown sellers might not be meteorites. I will not sell or trade any meteorites I may have found (or any questionable meteoritic material) unless I first obtain verification from a meteorite expert. And especially: Verified but unclassified material should be specified as such. Meteoritical Society guidelines will prevail in the circumstance of meteorite naming and pairing (- mean point, therefore the brackets, would be, to remind you, that for you the way that Mr. Jorge authenticated his pseudo-Chelyabinsk wasn't sufficient - but nothing else did you with your Martians, i.e. to trust your source and to inspect them personally. There is the danger for you, to loose credibility in attacking others..) And see, Especially the last point regarding the Code of Ethics of IMCA makes it so comfort for both of us, cause we don't have to discuss, whether those procedures are necessary or meaningful or which properties of your material made you think to be able to verify it or whether evil Martin doesn't like your nose or whether your material is authentic ect.pp. that's all not of interest, of interest is, if you fulfill the formalities the IMCA set for you (and the standard of the MetSoc and the standard among collectors, dealers, hunters, researchers) in appraising your material. To me it seems not so. To you all seems alright. And the comfort thing for us is, we don't have to decide that, but we can leave it to that organization, to decide. So that none of has to be tempted to suppose personal motivations in that question. That's why I asked you, whether you'd like to ask IMCA together with me about that case. But so far, I got no o.k. neither a no from you :-( Best, Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. März 2013 02:08 An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Martin, All, Personal jibes aside... Certainly -- I'll let others decide if this is enough information, and they're more than welcome to buy a sample to have it tested. I have no doubt that everything I'm offering is authentic, but everything I offer is of course backed by a full money-back guarantee. One that I will actually honor. I find it perhaps most amusing that you're not even saying that the samples I'm offering aren't paired with NWA 7034 or NWA 2975. If you are well familiarized with meteorites, I'm certain that you can tell that they're paired as well, from the photos alone. An analysis wouldn't tell you as much, nor would it prove the authenticity of most of the fragments that I am offering. Only a visual examination would do as much, unless you advocated polishing a side of each specimen and analyzing each one individually -- but such a burden of proof has *never* before been asked of any meteorite dealer. NWA 7034 and pairings are not just a breccia, as you describe them. The general texture of the breccia, as I have said before, is unlike any other meteorite or rock that I have ever seen
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Yes, Yep, Yeah Jason! You forget always, how old I am.. A more proper answer would have been: Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I'll correct it. I remember that in my active time in the IMCA-board such cases like yours were the most common complaints filed against members. The solution isn't a big thing, usually the board commended to the indicted to use those simple terms: An unclassified in a prominent position and likely and possible. You know, you have to give to the potential buyer the proper information as a base for him to make his decision. Your stones are unclassified according the guidelines of the Meteoritical Society and the Code of Ethics of the IMCA, Regarding the latter you have to indicate that. Whether a collector or buyer concedes to you sufficient experience and competence to identify your samples by your own correctly, you have simply to leave to him. I wouldn't have wrote that, if not already a case had happened, showing that your advertizing of the possible 7034 pairing can be misleading. After the fuss in media around NWA 7034 a not yet so experienced German collector found your offerings and was convinced to get a true part of the original NWA 7034 stones. You've to put yourself in the position of the various collectors, not all are content with the intrinsic properties of the material itself, to some it adds a lot to such a sample, to print out the articles from the media and to be able to show his specimen to others while pointing on a photo in these articles, being able to say, from this very stone my sample was taken from. Also you will confess, if asked by a collector, which stone he shall choose: That one from an unnumbered group, not listed in the Bulletin, of a likely pairing of NWA 2975 at 500$/g or that one from a grouplet officially classified and with an own number designed at 500$/g, you'll commend him the latter, as you know the techniques and the customs of meteorite collecting. So that collector asked in a forum, what the members would think about your offer. (I wished, that someone else than me would have given an answer to him, (but the others were inert.) cause now I gave the opportunity to a member there to continue to knit his favourite legend, that the incarnate evil strikes again to annihilate the world's dealership) Well and I answered him, that he should ask you again, whether your share will be officially classified or not. And told him, that if for him more the material itself is important, he can buy it, as I rely in your abilities to recognize it, though if he cares for later swaps, sales ect. that, what I had written in the last posting. And that's up to him, to decide. (Another member added an understandable opinion, that if a meteorite costs 10k$ a gram, the collector could expect, that it had been properly classified). Btw. meteorites do not travel only in space, but from collection to collection. How easily that NWA-numbers you use in your description can later slip on the label, mislabeling the specimen. Anyway, if a classification would make your material more expensive, is not of interest for a collector neither whether a material is too common and recognizable for you personally (an argument which that Jorge could have used too) He needs only the proper information about the status of the material to be able to make his decisions. And anyway, Whether meaningful or not, these are the rules, which you signed to obey, when you joined that club of IMCA. Well in that sense, I think, that club would certainly advise you to change your advertizing in the manner I explained to you. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Samstag, 2. März 2013 21:21 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Hello Martin, All, No, no, no, and no. I do not directly refer to the NWA 7034-paired material on my website as NWA 7034. I merely state that it is paired material. In the case of 7034, I scrutinized even the smallest fragments and volunteered a fragment for destructive analysis here at school. One of the fragments I received was not the same material as NWA 7034, and it is set aside. Admittedly, the sample for work is not 20% of the weight of the lot of fragments. But , since I'm not self-assigning an NWA number, the rules have been followed. Standard practice would dictate that I donate 20% of the lot of fragments to science, which would not necessitate cut samples from every fragment I have. If I didn't know what I were doing, and donated a ~2 gram fragment from the ~10 gram lot, most of the smaller pieces *could* be terrestrial crap, but the meteorite would be analyzed, approved, and you would (I assume) not be questioning it. While you may not examine prices carefully, a few weeks ago, the standard price for NWA 7034 was $20,000-30,000
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
, of a likely pairing of NWA 2975 at 500$/g or that one from a grouplet officially classified and with an own number designed at 500$/g, you'll commend him the latter, as you know the techniques and the customs of meteorite collecting. So that collector asked in a forum, what the members would think about your offer. (I wished, that someone else than me would have given an answer to him, (but the others were inert.) cause now I gave the opportunity to a member there to continue to knit his favourite legend, that the incarnate evil strikes again to annihilate the world's dealership) Well and I answered him, that he should ask you again, whether your share will be officially classified or not. And told him, that if for him more the material itself is important, he can buy it, as I rely in your abilities to recognize it, though if he cares for later swaps, sales ect. that, what I had written in the last posting. And that's up to him, to decide. (Another member added an understandable opinion, that if a meteorite costs 10k$ a gram, the collector could expect, that it had been properly classified). Btw. meteorites do not travel only in space, but from collection to collection. How easily that NWA-numbers you use in your description can later slip on the label, mislabeling the specimen. Anyway, if a classification would make your material more expensive, is not of interest for a collector neither whether a material is too common and recognizable for you personally (an argument which that Jorge could have used too) He needs only the proper information about the status of the material to be able to make his decisions. And anyway, Whether meaningful or not, these are the rules, which you signed to obey, when you joined that club of IMCA. Well in that sense, I think, that club would certainly advise you to change your advertizing in the manner I explained to you. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Samstag, 2. März 2013 21:21 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Hello Martin, All, No, no, no, and no. I do not directly refer to the NWA 7034-paired material on my website as NWA 7034. I merely state that it is paired material. In the case of 7034, I scrutinized even the smallest fragments and volunteered a fragment for destructive analysis here at school. One of the fragments I received was not the same material as NWA 7034, and it is set aside. Admittedly, the sample for work is not 20% of the weight of the lot of fragments. But , since I'm not self-assigning an NWA number, the rules have been followed. Standard practice would dictate that I donate 20% of the lot of fragments to science, which would not necessitate cut samples from every fragment I have. If I didn't know what I were doing, and donated a ~2 gram fragment from the ~10 gram lot, most of the smaller pieces *could* be terrestrial crap, but the meteorite would be analyzed, approved, and you would (I assume) not be questioning it. While you may not examine prices carefully, a few weeks ago, the standard price for NWA 7034 was $20,000-30,000 per gram for pieces less than a half gram or so. Only pieces in the gram+ range were as little as $10,000 per gram. I started my pricing at $10,000 per gram and went down to $5,000 per gram for larger pieces. My prices were a fraction of the advertised price for these stones, and unless other dealers have dropped their prices by ~50% or more, my prices are still lower. So, yes, my specimens are priced at a fraction of what other specimens are (or were) priced at. I haven't looked around in the past week or so, but I assume that's still true. Since I paid just over five times as much per gram for this material as I have for any other meteorite from NWA, I think that's fair. Why donating 20 grams or 20% of the material would enable me to raise prices by 50% to 300% is beyond my comprehension, though. I donated a fragment of the NWA 2975 lot to destructive research at UC Berkeley; it was mechanically destroyed, and the maskelynite crystals were removed for several Ar dating runs (which did agree with the conclusions reached by other dating methods for NWA 2975). Of course, since those stones could also have come from different locations, in theory, I would need to cut or break each one to confirm it, right? Even the ones that weigh 0.1-0.2 grams. By and large, I try to be reasonable with such things. Where do you draw the line between a large find like Taza or NWA 869 and something like NWA 2975? NWA 801? Each of these meteorites are now examples of large finds with hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals on the market. As such, I thought NWA 2975 would be a fine name to use. Everyone knows it, the stones
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Hiho Jason, not at all, I haven't any likely NWA 7034 at hand (nor would I have original NWA 7034 at hand, to compare), neither any leftover of NWA 4766 an official NWA 2975 pairing, whereof all stones were looked through by a meteorite scientist. (and anyway, how could you think that about me, tststs shame on you. Anyway I was out of biz for more than a year now, due to a disease and it will take a while until my little star will raise again to sparkle between the stars of the splendid Northern constellation of the FC Meteorite House). (I hadn't cost you a customer, it was his free decision. He asked in the forum, I told him, that also for me your description is not 100% clear and that he should ask you about the status of your material. And as he was a newer collector, I told him the difference between unclassified and classified material in the view of a collector. Told him, when his concern is only about the material itself, he could take advantage of your offer (as I trust in your abilities), but if he wants to get the number out of the media, it would be normal to take in account a higher price and to buy from a seller offering original NWA 7034, and that this with decision nobody could help him, but that he has to make it.) Hey, but now back to the beef. Jason, I have I an idea, which is also more comfort, as we don't have to argue then anymore. What do you think about the idea, that we both in your case file a formal complaint to the IMCA? Formal complaint, cause else IMCA doesn't occupy themselves with a case. I mean, they must know better than we, how to interpret their CoE. And then we wait for their decision. No worries, there will be no harm to you. Either they will say, correct your descriptions and commend how to do so and ask you to avoid something similar in future Or they will say, the complaint is baseless, it's o.k. like you did it (and you won a crate of beer from me at the nextTucson show). Shall we? Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Montag, 4. März 2013 16:42 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Ahhh, now I get it. Before I could have seen it as simple concern. Now I'm guessing you purchased some more material paired with NWA 7034, hope to sell it in the future, and are attacking my material accordingly. So now I'm not allowed to have my own opinion? Wow, Martin. I heard from some others (including a well-regarded scientist) that my last email raised some good points. You've got something else coming if you think I'm going to start taking your word as gospel, especially given your history. So you're the fellow who cost me a buyer by telling him that he should pay three times more for a chip from an analyzed rock. Well, shoot. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to have your back next time. Re: everything else/the IMCA: Authenticity is something I take very seriously, and not just with other peoples' rocks. I'm as critical of my samples as I can be, and donating a ~2 gram fragment from my lot of NWA 7034-paired material would not guarantee the authenticity of the smaller fragments. Only close scrutiny -- or probing each one individually would do that, and that sort of analytical requirement has never been in place for the IMCA or elsewhere. I've already pointed out that I skirt directly referring to the stones as NWA 7034 on the website, so your rehashing the you're using someone else's number is getting old. I do say these fragments are paired. They are. You also disregard the fact that pieces are being worked on and that, even if I had 20% of my lot of fragments analyzed, per convention, most of the fragments wouldn't be directly tested. You wouldn't be attacking my credibility, and I could sell as many similar-looking terrestrial rocks as I wanted -- in peace. So your rules don't ensure authenticity in this case. What does ensure authenticity is the fact that I looked at each fragment with a microscope, searching for those small, angular white clasts unique to this meteorite. It's very distinctive: I've taken mineralogy and petrology and never seen a terrestrial rock like it. It does resemble a few lunar meteorites grossly but is generally much more fine-grained. Just as the IMCA doesn't require each dealer to analyze NWA 869/801/978/753/etc., a stone from this find of many should be exempt from individual analysis. If you're going to go so far as to require each dealer to analyze his or her own material, I don't see why you wouldn't require that every chip or fragment that they buy then must be analyzed. Never mind the fact that this lot of fragments came from the exact same source as some of the larger stones that have since been put on the market. It simply doesn't make sense. But, I've already said this. You just ignored it. Same goes for most
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Dear Martin, Jason and List First, Martin, I love your highly spirited answer to Jason. Jason, as Martin says (and respects you)... you both should smoke the peace pipe... I am following this list because I love meteorites, although I am barely buying any... maybe I will in the future. (I love pallasites... but sooo expensive...) This is a great back and forth exchange which gets to the core of some really technical but real aspect of dealing with classifying, selling etc... So... hope you solve your momentary quarrel Cheers Michael B. (a meteorite fan from France) -- From: Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 6:28 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Hiho Jason, not at all, I haven't any likely NWA 7034 at hand (nor would I have original NWA 7034 at hand, to compare), neither any leftover of NWA 4766 an official NWA 2975 pairing, whereof all stones were looked through by a meteorite scientist. (and anyway, how could you think that about me, tststs shame on you. Anyway I was out of biz for more than a year now, due to a disease and it will take a while until my little star will raise again to sparkle between the stars of the splendid Northern constellation of the FC Meteorite House). (I hadn't cost you a customer, it was his free decision. He asked in the forum, I told him, that also for me your description is not 100% clear and that he should ask you about the status of your material. And as he was a newer collector, I told him the difference between unclassified and classified material in the view of a collector. Told him, when his concern is only about the material itself, he could take advantage of your offer (as I trust in your abilities), but if he wants to get the number out of the media, it would be normal to take in account a higher price and to buy from a seller offering original NWA 7034, and that this with decision nobody could help him, but that he has to make it.) Hey, but now back to the beef. Jason, I have I an idea, which is also more comfort, as we don't have to argue then anymore. What do you think about the idea, that we both in your case file a formal complaint to the IMCA? Formal complaint, cause else IMCA doesn't occupy themselves with a case. I mean, they must know better than we, how to interpret their CoE. And then we wait for their decision. No worries, there will be no harm to you. Either they will say, correct your descriptions and commend how to do so and ask you to avoid something similar in future Or they will say, the complaint is baseless, it's o.k. like you did it (and you won a crate of beer from me at the nextTucson show). Shall we? Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Montag, 4. März 2013 16:42 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Ahhh, now I get it. Before I could have seen it as simple concern. Now I'm guessing you purchased some more material paired with NWA 7034, hope to sell it in the future, and are attacking my material accordingly. So now I'm not allowed to have my own opinion? Wow, Martin. I heard from some others (including a well-regarded scientist) that my last email raised some good points. You've got something else coming if you think I'm going to start taking your word as gospel, especially given your history. So you're the fellow who cost me a buyer by telling him that he should pay three times more for a chip from an analyzed rock. Well, shoot. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to have your back next time. Re: everything else/the IMCA: Authenticity is something I take very seriously, and not just with other peoples' rocks. I'm as critical of my samples as I can be, and donating a ~2 gram fragment from my lot of NWA 7034-paired material would not guarantee the authenticity of the smaller fragments. Only close scrutiny -- or probing each one individually would do that, and that sort of analytical requirement has never been in place for the IMCA or elsewhere. I've already pointed out that I skirt directly referring to the stones as NWA 7034 on the website, so your rehashing the you're using someone else's number is getting old. I do say these fragments are paired. They are. You also disregard the fact that pieces are being worked on and that, even if I had 20% of my lot of fragments analyzed, per convention, most of the fragments wouldn't be directly tested. You wouldn't be attacking my credibility, and I could sell as many similar-looking terrestrial rocks as I wanted -- in peace. So your rules don't ensure authenticity in this case. What does ensure authenticity is the fact that I looked at each fragment with a microscope, searching
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
the time and costs to get their share of that meteorite properly classified and numbered. I think, it would be more respectable and fair towards the collectors and laypeople (and to your seller colleagues), if you would make more unmistakably clear, that those stones are possibly paired to the numbers you give there, based on your personal opinion as a non-scientist and perhaps to adjust the prices. (for the rookies, unclassified self-guesses have always to be cheaper than official numbers from the Bulletin, because, se above, they do have a lower value in the usances of the meteorite scene and because they have lower costs for the seller, cause for a classification you have to supply the institute with a share of 20% or 20grams of the meteorite for free and sometimes you have to pay a part of the classification costs too). And last but not least, that would give more weight to your words, when you doubt the reliability of other sellers in public. (Take for instance the case now, where it seems for you not enough authentication, when the seller of the probable pseudo-Chelyabinsk told, that his source assured, that they are authentic. - with the 2975 and 7034 you did just the same, didn't you?). As told, no offence intended, only a suggestion for an improvement. (Remark to Uruacu vs. Campo. Uruacu has also much more troilite blobs than Campo). Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von jason utas Gesendet: Freitag, 1. März 2013 05:32 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Hello Adam, All, Actually, Uruacu does appear to be distinct from Campo del Cielo. Uruacu appears to be a much older meteorite that has weathered in different conditions, and many individuals show cohenite when cut -- a mineral I have never seen in Campo del Cielo. Generally speaking, Campos run the full range from freshly-fusion crusted to rusty lumps, and everything in-between. But, Campo fell within the past ~5,000 years, so we're talking about rapid weathering in a wet environment (also why it's a ruster). Uruacu fell in a drier area, and most individuals exhibit a much more uniform covering of shale that does not readily flake off due to rusting. They seem to have fallen much longer ago, and are generally more weathered due to the fact that they've been around for longer. Uruacu generally resists rusting better. It would be like comparing Sikhote Alin to Henbury. No Henburies I know of rust, but, by and large, they're not as fresh as most Sikhotes. But some Sikhotes appear to have fallen into swampy areas and look pretty bad -- and rust. It's hard to mix the two up. The trouble is that I've also seen Campos sold as Uruacu, which complicates things. Uruacu is a very old fall. Even some reputable dealers have been selling specimens of new Campo (crust, regmaglypts) as Uruacu. Very different. I assume this is due to dishonest suppliers. There's a stunning, fairly large Uruacu for sale at the moment. Not mine, but I wonder if this will bring it out of the woodwork. Regards, Jason From: Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite To: Adam meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Isn't Baygorria another meteorite with a fake provenance? Basically a cleaned up Campo with a delaminated section protruding after a not-so-careful makeover. I would just tell him to seek first aid so he doesn't catch the dreaded Lawrencite disease. Adam - Original Message - From: Randy Korotev koro...@wustl.edu To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite I recieved a well prepared letter from a fellow with a question that I can't begin to answer. Maybe someone on the list has seen this kind of thing before. He bought a Baygorria (Iron, IAB complex) from a dealer 3 years ago. He picked it up recently to find a metal protrusion sticking out of the thing that was sharp enough to prick his thumb. Here's a jpg of his scanned photo. http://meteorites.wustl.edu/baygorria.jpg What's happened here? Randy Korotev St. Louis __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Hi Jason, no offense, but only a remark. You're always pretty fast, when it's about blaming sellers to be dishonest or fraudulent. In my personal opinion that doesn't fit directly well together with some offerings on your webpage. For instance some of the Martians, there it is not directly clear for the reader, whether the specimens, which you reckon to be paired to black beauty - NWA 7034 are parts of the original stones, which were numbered or whether they will be still classified and will receive an own NWA number or whether they were told by a scientist to be paired and remain unnumbered or whether it's your personal opinion based on your experience. Same to some extent with the obviously unclassified stones, where you use the number NWA 2975 (which was one single stone) in the menu side bar. In my eyes that is problematical. It seems to be a classical self-pairing, which should be a no-go for IMCA-members. But especially it's somewhat not so fine for the not yet so experienced collectors, as they often are not aware, that such unclassified stones will have later in case they want to swap or trade them once, do have a remarkably lower collector's and trade value - thus a lower monetary value than their officially recognized and numbered comrades. Neither the latter is evident for the naïve beginner, if he reads your prices. The unclassified ones, which you relate to NWA 7034 cost around 10,000$/g on your pages and also the supposed NWA 2975-pairing are not different in price than the specimens sold by more professional collectors and dealers, who took the time and costs to get their share of that meteorite properly classified and numbered. I think, it would be more respectable and fair towards the collectors and laypeople (and to your seller colleagues), if you would make more unmistakably clear, that those stones are possibly paired to the numbers you give there, based on your personal opinion as a non-scientist and perhaps to adjust the prices. (for the rookies, unclassified self-guesses have always to be cheaper than official numbers from the Bulletin, because, se above, they do have a lower value in the usances of the meteorite scene and because they have lower costs for the seller, cause for a classification you have to supply the institute with a share of 20% or 20grams of the meteorite for free and sometimes you have to pay a part of the classification costs too). And last but not least, that would give more weight to your words, when you doubt the reliability of other sellers in public. (Take for instance the case now, where it seems for you not enough authentication, when the seller of the probable pseudo-Chelyabinsk told, that his source assured, that they are authentic. - with the 2975 and 7034 you did just the same, didn't you?). As told, no offence intended, only a suggestion for an improvement. (Remark to Uruacu vs. Campo. Uruacu has also much more troilite blobs than Campo). Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von jason utas Gesendet: Freitag, 1. März 2013 05:32 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Hello Adam, All, Actually, Uruacu does appear to be distinct from Campo del Cielo. Uruacu appears to be a much older meteorite that has weathered in different conditions, and many individuals show cohenite when cut -- a mineral I have never seen in Campo del Cielo. Generally speaking, Campos run the full range from freshly-fusion crusted to rusty lumps, and everything in-between. But, Campo fell within the past ~5,000 years, so we're talking about rapid weathering in a wet environment (also why it's a ruster). Uruacu fell in a drier area, and most individuals exhibit a much more uniform covering of shale that does not readily flake off due to rusting. They seem to have fallen much longer ago, and are generally more weathered due to the fact that they've been around for longer. Uruacu generally resists rusting better. It would be like comparing Sikhote Alin to Henbury. No Henburies I know of rust, but, by and large, they're not as fresh as most Sikhotes. But some Sikhotes appear to have fallen into swampy areas and look pretty bad -- and rust. It's hard to mix the two up. The trouble is that I've also seen Campos sold as Uruacu, which complicates things. Uruacu is a very old fall. Even some reputable dealers have been selling specimens of new Campo (crust, regmaglypts) as Uruacu. Very different. I assume this is due to dishonest suppliers. There's a stunning, fairly large Uruacu for sale at the moment. Not mine, but I wonder if this will bring it out of the woodwork. Regards, Jason From: Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite To: Adam meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Isn't
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Hello Mike, All, Good catch. Uruacu's something else, while Baygorria is Campo, along with Las Palmas and a few other newbies supposedly from...other places. Gotta love globalization... Jason On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com wrote: Uruacu could hardly be more different than Campo. Jason, are you confusing Baygorria with Uruacu? I saw Adam mention Baygorria (which is a total scam to claim campo under another name). Uruacu from Brazil is an extremely stable iron. It is old, but amazingly when cut is perfect and so have yet to see a piece that rusts on a cut surface. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2013, at 11:31 PM, jason utas jasonu...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Adam, All, Actually, Uruacu does appear to be distinct from Campo del Cielo. Uruacu appears to be a much older meteorite that has weathered in different conditions, and many individuals show cohenite when cut -- a mineral I have never seen in Campo del Cielo. Generally speaking, Campos run the full range from freshly-fusion crusted to rusty lumps, and everything in-between. But, Campo fell within the past ~5,000 years, so we're talking about rapid weathering in a wet environment (also why it's a ruster). Uruacu fell in a drier area, and most individuals exhibit a much more uniform covering of shale that does not readily flake off due to rusting. They seem to have fallen much longer ago, and are generally more weathered due to the fact that they've been around for longer. Uruacu generally resists rusting better. It would be like comparing Sikhote Alin to Henbury. No Henburies I know of rust, but, by and large, they're not as fresh as most Sikhotes. But some Sikhotes appear to have fallen into swampy areas and look pretty bad -- and rust. It's hard to mix the two up. The trouble is that I've also seen Campos sold as Uruacu, which complicates things. Uruacu is a very old fall. Even some reputable dealers have been selling specimens of new Campo (crust, regmaglypts) as Uruacu. Very different. I assume this is due to dishonest suppliers. There's a stunning, fairly large Uruacu for sale at the moment. Not mine, but I wonder if this will bring it out of the woodwork. Regards, Jason From: Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite To: Adam meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Isn't Baygorria another meteorite with a fake provenance? Basically a cleaned up Campo with a delaminated section protruding after a not-so-careful makeover. I would just tell him to seek first aid so he doesn't catch the dreaded Lawrencite disease. Adam - Original Message - From: Randy Korotev koro...@wustl.edu To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite I recieved a well prepared letter from a fellow with a question that I can't begin to answer. Maybe someone on the list has seen this kind of thing before. He bought a Baygorria (Iron, IAB complex) from a dealer 3 years ago. He picked it up recently to find a metal protrusion sticking out of the thing that was sharp enough to prick his thumb. Here's a jpg of his scanned photo. http://meteorites.wustl.edu/baygorria.jpg What's happened here? Randy Korotev St. Louis __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Uruacu could hardly be more different than Campo. Jason, are you confusing Baygorria with Uruacu? I saw Adam mention Baygorria (which is a total scam to claim campo under another name). Uruacu from Brazil is an extremely stable iron. It is old, but amazingly when cut is perfect and so have yet to see a piece that rusts on a cut surface. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2013, at 11:31 PM, jason utas jasonu...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Adam, All, Actually, Uruacu does appear to be distinct from Campo del Cielo. Uruacu appears to be a much older meteorite that has weathered in different conditions, and many individuals show cohenite when cut -- a mineral I have never seen in Campo del Cielo. Generally speaking, Campos run the full range from freshly-fusion crusted to rusty lumps, and everything in-between. But, Campo fell within the past ~5,000 years, so we're talking about rapid weathering in a wet environment (also why it's a ruster). Uruacu fell in a drier area, and most individuals exhibit a much more uniform covering of shale that does not readily flake off due to rusting. They seem to have fallen much longer ago, and are generally more weathered due to the fact that they've been around for longer. Uruacu generally resists rusting better. It would be like comparing Sikhote Alin to Henbury. No Henburies I know of rust, but, by and large, they're not as fresh as most Sikhotes. But some Sikhotes appear to have fallen into swampy areas and look pretty bad -- and rust. It's hard to mix the two up. The trouble is that I've also seen Campos sold as Uruacu, which complicates things. Uruacu is a very old fall. Even some reputable dealers have been selling specimens of new Campo (crust, regmaglypts) as Uruacu. Very different. I assume this is due to dishonest suppliers. There's a stunning, fairly large Uruacu for sale at the moment. Not mine, but I wonder if this will bring it out of the woodwork. Regards, Jason From: Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite To: Adam meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Isn't Baygorria another meteorite with a fake provenance? Basically a cleaned up Campo with a delaminated section protruding after a not-so-careful makeover. I would just tell him to seek first aid so he doesn't catch the dreaded Lawrencite disease. Adam - Original Message - From: Randy Korotev koro...@wustl.edu To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite I recieved a well prepared letter from a fellow with a question that I can't begin to answer. Maybe someone on the list has seen this kind of thing before. He bought a Baygorria (Iron, IAB complex) from a dealer 3 years ago. He picked it up recently to find a metal protrusion sticking out of the thing that was sharp enough to prick his thumb. Here's a jpg of his scanned photo. http://meteorites.wustl.edu/baygorria.jpg What's happened here? Randy Korotev St. Louis __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Sorry Mike, I'll have to disagree with you. Uruacu is a ruster. And I have had plenty of pieces, very carefully professionally prepared pieces to prove it. Whole individuals and cut pieces. Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- From: Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com To: jason utas jasonu...@gmail.com Cc: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 8:43 am Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Uruacu could hardly be more different than Campo. Jason, are you confusing Baygorria with Uruacu? I saw Adam mention Baygorria (which is a total scam to claim campo under another name). Uruacu from Brazil is an extremely stable iron. It is old, but amazingly when cut is perfect and so have yet to see a piece that rusts on a cut surface. Michael Farmer __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Hello Adam, All, Actually, Uruacu does appear to be distinct from Campo del Cielo. Uruacu appears to be a much older meteorite that has weathered in different conditions, and many individuals show cohenite when cut -- a mineral I have never seen in Campo del Cielo. Generally speaking, Campos run the full range from freshly-fusion crusted to rusty lumps, and everything in-between. But, Campo fell within the past ~5,000 years, so we're talking about rapid weathering in a wet environment (also why it's a ruster). Uruacu fell in a drier area, and most individuals exhibit a much more uniform covering of shale that does not readily flake off due to rusting. They seem to have fallen much longer ago, and are generally more weathered due to the fact that they've been around for longer. Uruacu generally resists rusting better. It would be like comparing Sikhote Alin to Henbury. No Henburies I know of rust, but, by and large, they're not as fresh as most Sikhotes. But some Sikhotes appear to have fallen into swampy areas and look pretty bad -- and rust. It's hard to mix the two up. The trouble is that I've also seen Campos sold as Uruacu, which complicates things. Uruacu is a very old fall. Even some reputable dealers have been selling specimens of new Campo (crust, regmaglypts) as Uruacu. Very different. I assume this is due to dishonest suppliers. There's a stunning, fairly large Uruacu for sale at the moment. Not mine, but I wonder if this will bring it out of the woodwork. Regards, Jason From: Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite To: Adam meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Isn't Baygorria another meteorite with a fake provenance? Basically a cleaned up Campo with a delaminated section protruding after a not-so-careful makeover. I would just tell him to seek first aid so he doesn't catch the dreaded Lawrencite disease. Adam - Original Message - From: Randy Korotev koro...@wustl.edu To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite I recieved a well prepared letter from a fellow with a question that I can't begin to answer. Maybe someone on the list has seen this kind of thing before. He bought a Baygorria (Iron, IAB complex) from a dealer 3 years ago. He picked it up recently to find a metal protrusion sticking out of the thing that was sharp enough to prick his thumb. Here's a jpg of his scanned photo. http://meteorites.wustl.edu/baygorria.jpg What's happened here? Randy Korotev St. Louis __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
I recieved a well prepared letter from a fellow with a question that I can't begin to answer. Maybe someone on the list has seen this kind of thing before. He bought a Baygorria (Iron, IAB complex) from a dealer 3 years ago. He picked it up recently to find a metal protrusion sticking out of the thing that was sharp enough to prick his thumb. Here's a jpg of his scanned photo. http://meteorites.wustl.edu/baygorria.jpg What's happened here? Randy Korotev St. Louis __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Isn't Baygorria another meteorite with a fake provenance? Basically a cleaned up Campo with a delaminated section protruding after a not-so-careful makeover. I would just tell him to seek first aid so he doesn't catch the dreaded Lawrencite disease. Adam - Original Message - From: Randy Korotev koro...@wustl.edu To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite I recieved a well prepared letter from a fellow with a question that I can't begin to answer. Maybe someone on the list has seen this kind of thing before. He bought a Baygorria (Iron, IAB complex) from a dealer 3 years ago. He picked it up recently to find a metal protrusion sticking out of the thing that was sharp enough to prick his thumb. Here's a jpg of his scanned photo. http://meteorites.wustl.edu/baygorria.jpg What's happened here? Randy Korotev St. Louis __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
My guess is the the metal was pushed out due to oxidization. The metal seems to be protruding from a crack. I'm thinking moisture made its way into the crack and as the iron oxide formed, it forced the metal to cleave and then pushed the metal up. Mendy Ouzillou On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:41 PM, Randy Korotev koro...@wustl.edu wrote: I recieved a well prepared letter from a fellow with a question that I can't begin to answer. Maybe someone on the list has seen this kind of thing before. He bought a Baygorria (Iron, IAB complex) from a dealer 3 years ago. He picked it up recently to find a metal protrusion sticking out of the thing that was sharp enough to prick his thumb. Here's a jpg of his scanned photo. http://meteorites.wustl.edu/baygorria.jpg What's happened here? Randy Korotev St. Louis __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
