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 <https://i.imgur.com/dqkqk05.jpg>, where
Mark decided that an unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another
dealer's published CR2. And this one
<https://i.imgur.com/A0y83Tj.jpg>, 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
<https://i.imgur.com/dqkqk05.jpg>: 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
<https://imgur.com/a/47qmQK7>. 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
<https://5dhealingcrystals.com/products/pallasite-meteorite-erg-chech>.
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
<https://i.imgur.com/lUWiP9q.png>. 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
<https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=74840>. 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 less about me than he does about meteorites. I
wasn't interested in trading jibes, and there was no hope of reasoning
with that -- so, after saving all of our conversations, I blocked
him. I don't know or care who blocked whom first. I think Mark's
fixation on that detail is...telling.
In his email, Mark also mentioned when he and I first met. I'd be
glad to fill out what happened that afternoon:
The first time I met Mark Lyon was at the Tucson Show in 2021. As I
walked through the doorway into his room, he was having a conversation
with Robert Cucciara and Ashley Humphreys. They were discussing how
to get Dustin Dickens banned from eBay for 'selling pieces of one of
Mark’s classifications.' From what I gathered: Bob had bought some of
whatever meteorite it was from Mark, and Bob didn't appreciate the
competition from Dustin on eBay. Mark hadn't sold Dustin any of that
meteorite, so they concluded that Dustin was 'guilty of using Mark's
NWA number.' I looked around the room while the three of them spent a
few minutes talking about how they might be able to get Dustin removed
from eBay. To be fair, Mark did, once, suggest reaching out to
Dustin, but Ashley and Bob seemed set on trying to get him booted, and
the conversation went on for some time -- the group at one point pored
over a phone to look at Dustin's eBay listings.
Mark was new to meteorites and the community. I guess I shouldn't
have stuck my nose in it (I know), but I consider Dustin honest, and a
friend, and...it all sounded pretty bad. I pointed out that dealers
and collectors routinely use others’ numbers when it is convenient --
including Taza (NWA 859), and others. I also told Mark that, many
years ago, I visited UCLA with Peter to drop off a Taza individual for
the type specimen of the new iron. A few other dealers also
contributed material. I said that if Mark claimed to own the NWA
number for whatever they were talking about, he shouldn't use numbers
like NWA 859, because he didn't contribute to that type specimen and
didn't own that number. By Mark's own reasoning, Peter and I, and
some other dealers, submitted the type specimen for that meteorite: it
was our number. Now, three years after that conversation, Mark
apparently remembers it well enough to mention that particular
meteorite I used as an example...but his depiction is pretty
misleading. Especially given that we've had ~the same conversation
more than once, as shown by this Facebook chat
<https://imgur.com/a/Gx2lKlN>. That chat is also interesting for a
few other reasons - Mark succinctly lays out his thoughts on DCA
numbers and pairings there.
After what went down at Tucson, I gave Dustin a heads up and warned
him about the trouble that might be coming his way. From what Dustin
told me later, the issue was as simple as...a typo. Swapped digits on
an NWA number. ...All of that misguided ill-will and animosity, over
a simple mistake. I'd have thought the issue was resolved then, but,
as you can see in that Facebook chat, Mark was still quick to malign
Dustin two years later.
My two conversations with Mark give good insight into his views on DCA
numbers: When Mark wants to use a DCA number someone else obtained, to
quote Mark, "nobody owns a classification number". But, if someone
else uses one of Mark's numbers, it's /very not okay/.
That's not common sense. It's just a double standard.
An appeal to "common sense" always sounds great because it should be,
by definition, reasonable. The trouble is that "common sense" means
completely different things to different people. It's an empty
statement, like a politician saying they support "common sense gun
laws." I don't see how anyone could argue with that -- but good luck
with getting two people to agree on what it means. Benzaki Mohamed
thought it was /common sense/ to sell a batch of NWA fragments as
being paired with a published find. Jason Whitcomb thought /common
sense/ meant /not/ doing that. That discrepancy is why we're here.
"Common sense" is great until money's involved and two people don't
agree on something. Or until someone figures out that fresh Agoudal
looks kind of like Taza, and they can charge five times more for it by
writing a new label. ...Or until someone thinks they know meteorites
pretty well, when they might not...
...While writing this, I was curious to find out if Mark had ever
gotten his "Erg Chech 003" ~CV3 classified, so I checked the Bulletin
for CVs with his name on them. There were just three
<https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=lyon&sfor=text&ants=&nwas=&falls=&valids=&stype=contains&lrec=50&map=ge&browse=&country=All&srt=name&categ=CV+chondrites&mblist=All&rect=&phot=&strewn=&snew=0&pnt=Normal%20table&dr=&page=0>,
two of which had published photos. Neither of them was a match -- but
even though I was looking at just two meteorites, another /common
sense/ pairing seemed to emerge.
Which of these meteorites is the CV3 NWA 14743?: this ~CV3
<https://i.imgur.com/4nTVJaS.jpg> or this rock that looks much more
like a ~CK <https://i.imgur.com/2X74bsS.jpg>? If you guessed both of
them <https://www.ebay.pl/itm/325559984853> (2
<https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/225939120723?customid&toolid=10050>),
you're right! The Bulletin says NWA 14743 was found as three
fragments. It sure looks to me like at least two of them weren't
paired. Oops. Maybe someone else mixed up a slice? That would be
convenient...but I'm seeing more specimens of both online. Don't
think so.
Honestly, I don't think there's anything I could say about Mark that's
worse than those two pictures. One more time: here's "NWA 14743
<https://i.imgur.com/A0y83Tj.jpg>." And "Erg Chech 003
<https://i.imgur.com/dqkqk05.jpg>." Right click and open the images
in a new tab for full resolution.
Mark also mentioned Omolon in his message. I have some apprehensions
about the "Omolon" that has recently surfaced on the market, and I
stand by my comments <https://i.imgur.com/jz1vfJ8.png>: I said the
material looked questionable to me, said why, and asked for any
information that might corroborate its authenticity. No one offered
any information about it, so I see no reason to trust it.
I've been collecting meteorites for 25 years. I should be excited at
the prospect of Omolon becoming available. But, I saw one
fragment at Tucson and immediately thought it looked...concerning. I
then saw some pieces listed on eBay, and they looked...similar. I had
no idea Mark was involved with it, and I don't know who supposedly
found it, or if all of the material on the market came from a single,
supposedly reputable source. While I don't have analytical proof that
any specimens being sold as Omolon aren't Omolon, I wouldn't touch
it. Why?
Let's play a game. Some of these specimens are supposedly from a
witnessed fall from 40 years ago. The others are all cleaned pieces of
disaggregated, highly weathered pallasites that have been on Earth for
untold thousands of years. Find the Omolon! <https://imgur.com/a/Q9gK8eT>
Give up? Don't worry, I wouldn't be able to figure it out, either. I
don't think anyone could. It's photos 2, 7, 8, and 9. Everything
/else/ is Brahin and Admire. The sharp 'scalloping' visible on the
"Omolon" specimens are spots where corrosion has eaten into the metal;
the fragments have been shaped by weathering. Those pits should be
filled with oxides: a few are, but most are not. Most of the rust
that was on the surface has been either chemically or mechanically
removed by a human. It's difficult to say post-cleaning, but I think
the remaining platy oxides and oxide layers under some of the olivine
crystals are consistent with these fragments being part of a larger
mass, cut by veins of oxides. None of that would make sense if these
were Omolon. They all look much more weathered to me than something
that should be analogous, like a Sikhote recovered in the ~1980s.
You could take skeletal fragments of almost any highly weathered
pallasite and clean them to produce a similar product. Disaggregated
Seymchan can look ~identical <https://i.imgur.com/rIXCgKe.jpg> (from a
mass like this <https://i.imgur.com/axHt2Oq.jpg>) after cleaning, but
I couldn't find any photos online of small Seymchans like that,
post-cleaning. You might be able to tell between some pallasite
specimens like that if they had rounded versus angular olivine
crystals, but many finds, like Brahin and Seymchan, contain regions of
both.
Could these be Omolon? It's probably possible: spending 40 years
buried in a wet spot could probably result in specimens with the
pictured corrosion/weathering, after a rough chemical cleaning. How
likely is it? Probability isn't the best way to think about this;
they're either real or they're not, and unknown variables could flip
it one way or the other: there could be great evidence that they're
real. There's even a chance that someone did manage to find the
square ~few meters where you might expect to find Omolon fragments out
in the Taiga, they picked up some real Omolon, and it was later
adulterated with misrepresented stuff by someone else, between then
and now. That might sound crazy, but that ~exact scenario happened
with Mifflin back in 2010, when I caught a few dealers mixing real
Mifflin with Bassikounou/Chergach
<https://meteoritegallery.com/mifflin-l5/>. Something similar also
happened after Mangui fell: at least one Chinese dealer started
selling large slices of HaH 346 as the much pricier Chinese fall in
late 2018. Tarda? Yup. NWA 7034? Yup. Tissint? Yup. It's not rare.
I just haven't seen any "Omolon" specimens I would trust. I do trust
hunters like Serge and Dima; if they said they'd personally found
these specimens and cleaned them, I'd be inclined to believe them.
But I would insist on knowing the chain of custody in detail for
something like this. Barring that, I just don't think it makes
sense. Hell, I even asked Dima about it a little while back, but
haven't heard back yet.
I think that's all pretty reasonable. Twenty-five years of
experience, observations, paired with common sense. No jumping to
conclusions. And I'd still love for my suspicions to be wrong in this
case. So...I guess Mark can just share the information he has? He
knows it's real. He can put my suspicions to rest, and prove me
wrong. It should be simple. I'm all ears.
Mark apparently doesn't know much about me, my past, or what I do. I
don't owe him any explanations, but, since he's attacked me in public,
I'm going to comment on it here for the benefit of everyone else.
Grad school aside, I identify specimens for whoever asks, including
museums and institutions, and most of that isn't public. A recent
/public/ but unsolicited example would be this stone, published as a
new Martian a few months ago
<https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=81266>. That
specimen was listed in a Heritage auction as a Tissint individual
about a year ago
<https://fineart.ha.com/itm/meteorites/martian/presumed-tissint-martian-meteorite-martian-shergottite-tata-morocco-29-28-55-n-7-36-/a/8096-72175.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515>.
After I let them know that the specimen was not Tissint, Heritage
amended the listing before the auction, and I'm glad to see that they
sorted it out ethically with the buyer afterwards. Heritage had the
stone analyzed, and its description shows that the stone is _not_ an
olivine-phyric basalt, and is _not_ Tissint. I've caught a number of
issues like that for major auction houses, but they almost never wind
up published and identifiable like that. And I’m still curious about
who tried to list that stone as Tissint…
There are two problems in a large meteorite auction scheduled for next
month. I don't want to name the auction, but you can probably figure
it out. The specimens are 100% misidentified. /Can you spot them? /
I don't know how many of my IDs have been analytically confirmed, but
I can say that many have been
<https://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ashcreekzunhua.png> (also
NWA 11889, and others). I can't quote a correct/incorrect rate,
because it's not clear-cut; I've voiced concerns about material when I
haven't been certain that it was misrepresented -- like this Omolon.
I don't think you can really be right or wrong if you say "I think
this looks off, does anyone have any details on it?" Asking that
should be fine in a community like ours, where so much material gets
both intentionally and unintentionally mislabeled. If a specimen
looks weird, or wrong, or whatever, people should be allowed to
question it, and that should be okay. And it should also be okay to
point out when obvious fakes
<https://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/general-discussion-gc5/what-did-i-find-gc11/683620-tiger-tail-meteorite/page2>
surface.
Mark's only been doing meteorite-related stuff for a few years and he
has no related background. I'd expect some mishaps from anyone in
those circumstances. I guess as long as Mark refunds people when it
happens, like he did with John, it's not really unethical for Mark to
berate anyone who points out that he's sold misrepresented material?
I don't understand it, but it won't stop me. I have no qualms about
publicly posting any other bad IDs I see, and insults he throws out,
so that you all can see the kind of guy he is, too.
I suppose it's not really that simple, because some misrepresented
material is still going to get into circulation, which is a
problem... Maybe some of the more experienced members in the Global
Meteorite Association (GMA) can help Mark sort it out? I don't know.
What's supposed to happen with NWA 14743 now? I'm seeing active
listings of what looks to me like at least two different meteorites,
sold listings for both going back at least a year...pieces for sale on
websites like www.meteorites-for-sale.com
<http://www.meteorites-for-sale.com>, sold pieces there... It looks
like a real headache. I wouldn't know where to begin.
As Mendy said, caveat emptor. Always. IMCA, GMA, me, doesn't matter.
Jason
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 7:50 PM Mark Lyon <mark.lyon.i...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Jason Humboldt,
You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas. He has been doing
this for years. He isnt going to change. You should have seen
some of the messages he sent me before i blocked him. The first
time I met him he went in my display room in tucson and started
complaining about me selling taza (nwa 859) because it was his
dad's classification. Then he claimed he was just using it as an
example because he thought he overheard me attacking dustin
Dickens (a friend of mine) for pairing meteorites. More recently,
he made damaging accusations about omolon specimens actually being
brahin. Not caring how it affected a Russian group who had just
spent months travelling and collecting the materials. He always
thinks he is right, and he very seldom is. For the record, you
did not attack a Moroccan seller. You politely told him not to use
your classification, which was probably a single person
classification with low total known weight. Anyone with common
sense can see that this is different from huge finds like hah346
and jikhara 001 and erg chech and whatever else he complained
about. I didn't read his whole message because I have heard it all
before. Collectors want to know they are getting these, and not
another meteorite. People are not using these names to be
dishonest but to accurately describe what they are selling. It
would be doing the community a disservice not to use these names.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list
<meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you
would spend on your reply.
Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to
shame me as a hypocrite, even when you have witness to me
striving for best practices. Having autism I often struggle
to understand people's intention. Many times I have gone
wrong assuming the worst in people's actions. So one of my
strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention
that someone could have. I admit sometimes it is difficult
with your approach (and attempt to shame me) but since your
critique was not sound I came to reason that you saw an
injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed and you
felt the need to "punch the bully in his face". A fierce
sense of justice that sometimes leads me to act foolish is
also part of my condition so I was able to have sympathy with
this realization. Now that you have responded I can more
clearly see your intention. So here is my considered response.
To the community: I am happy to assist with meteoritics in
any way that I can. If you have material that you feel might
be paired with mine I am happy to look at any information and
give my honest response. It would be unethical and dirty
feeling to do otherwise. I have not made it to where I am in
life by acting in short term interests. Relationships are life
long.
To Benzaki Mohamed: I am sorry if I shamed you. I am often
blunt and act quickly. Jason's best point is that I should
have reached out to you in private first. If you send me
images or any supporting information I am happy to give you my
honest opinion. You would then have my full support marketing
the material as paired if it checks out.
To Jason: I forgive you. I know what it is like to have
conflict with the world.
Best regards,
Jason
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 5:50 PM Jason Utas
<meteorite...@gmail.com> wrote:
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 offered as Jikharra in the past week or so, at
Jikharra prices. But the mistakes aren't always
unintentional, and they don't always favor the customer.
And it's no one's responsibility to catch them, so...it
just happens. Boatloads of random, unclassified
meteorites are sold as NWA 869, HaH 346, Taza, Ziz, etc.
Every big DCA meteorite. Ever since Agoudal was
discovered, ~fresh pieces keep coming up as Taza, at
inflated prices. A ~300 gram lot sold on eBay just a few
weeks ago. There are some on eBay right now. Both of
those irons are pretty big finds. A fake Tissint even
turned up in a Heritage Auction a year or so ago. "But
it's a big find" = not a good argument for arbitrary pairing.
The issue is accuracy, and material getting
misrepresented, and I don't have a good answer. The
Meteoritical Society has its official pairing guidelines
here, Section 4.2:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/docs/nc-guidelines.htm
The rules say that you need proof of pairing. Proof.
Either fragments physically fit together, or you have in
situ photos -- or you shouldn’t assume rocks are paired.
That would theoretically ensure that no mistakes are
made. And when scientists are in charge of things, like
in Antarctica, that's what happens. Everything gets
analyzed.
No meteorite dealers follow the guidelines. 0.
Historically, our community has assumed that a dealer who
got a meteorite analyzed could reliably "self-pair" other
meteorites to that specimen. The reasoning was that a lab
had analyzed a sample, and the dealer could directly
compare the analyzed specimen to others, so there was
little room for error. It "helps to ensure authenticity."
But, in reality, this practice gave dealers a
carte-blanche to "pair" any meteorites that looked grossly
similar. As long as you got one rock classified, no one
would question anything you called paired. It's great. It
can be really convenient if you get something analyzed and
more of it turns up later. But...it also opens the door
for problems.
From a practical standpoint: we're never going to get
air-tight documentation for most finds, large or small.
And it would be ~impossible, and a huge waste of
resources, to analyze every specimen of something like NWA
869. Or even NWA 15758. It doesn't work. In the end,
everyone does their own thing, both collectors and
scientists trust dealers to pair things correctly, and
most things wind up being correctly identified. Many
don't, though. It ultimately comes down to the given
dealer, their experience, their judgement, and their
honesty. And no one is perfect, and dishonest people
exist, so material will be mislabeled. It is inevitable.
You and I are both familiar with how NWA meteorites are
bought and sold: single finds are often divided and sold
on by any number of sellers and resellers. ~Identical
lots of the same find turn up simultaneously with multiple
dealers, often with a few odd meteorites mixed in. That's
completely normal, and NWA sellers are frequently aware of
others who are also offering the same material. The way
you responded to Benzaki Mohamed denied all of that, and
was demeaning.
There's no good reason to assume Benzaki's material either
is or isn't NWA 15758 until you see it for yourself. He's
a pretty well-known dealer; I'd want to see the stones for
myself, but, without knowing any other details, I'd be
inclined to think he was right about the pairing. Kind of
like how you're saying it would be okay to trust Benzaki
if he was selling a lot of a larger find like Jikharra
001. And like how everyone trusts you to ensure that all
of the fragments you're selling as NWA 15758 are paired,
even though probably just one piece was analyzed. ...And
how everyone would trust you if you bought Benzaki's new
lot and said it, too, was paired with NWA 15758...
Everyone is relying on your experience, your judgement,
and your integrity, to determine whether or not those
fragments are all paired. Yet you're telling Benzaki, or
his supplier, or maybe even the actual finder of NWA
15758, that they can't do the same thing, in this one
case. Not because they're unfamiliar with the find, not
because they don't have the same amount of experience as
you, not because they're dishonest -- but "because of the
resources you invested into getting the meteorite
classified."
I don't agree with that.
I guess you're also arguing that NWA 15758 is
different because it's "just 1 kg." But...is it? I
haven't reached out to Benzaki to check out this new lot,
but it sure sounds like that might not be true.
3) I don't see a difference between labeling a specimen as
"someone else's" approved DCA number versus selling a
specimen like that. Either way, you're assigning an
identity to a meteorite. It's the same thing in the long
run, especially if you're posting the photos publicly. If
you think one is wrong, then the other should be, too. I
don't have an issue with folks doing that as long as
there's no doubt that the ID is correct, but I'm also not
the one attacking someone else for doing it. Case in
point: I agree that your large eucrite looks to be paired
with Jikharra 001. But, if you're going to play that
card, and post it as "likely paired" on your website, it
should be fine for Benzaki to say the same thing about
his CK / NWA 15758 if he believes it. Right? If not,
you're holding Benzaki to a higher standard than yourself.
By now, you've had some time to look into this. Did you
ask for photos of Benzaki's CK? Did you figure out if his
lot is from the same area as yours? From the same
finder? Do they look like the same material? Do you
think they're paired? What is the real TKW of NWA 15758?
Is it just the ~1 kg in the Bulletin? How much more is
out there? None? Just this one lot? More?
You asked me what I would do. If it were my meteorite,
I'd want to know. And I wouldn't want to hide that
information from potential buyers. I don't think that
would be honest.
If it turned out that Benzaki was right about the pairing,
you attacked him for correctly labeling a meteorite. I'd
say you should probably apologize to him.
Sorry this got so long.
Jason
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:03 PM humboldt bay jay
<humboldtbay...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am sending this again as I realized I only replied
to you and not the list as well. This turns out good
for me because it offers a chance to better compose my
thoughts. I was running errands when I sent the first
email. To begin again:
Jason,
I see what you are saying, and it is a reasonable
point but I disagree. These are the reasons:
1. I can elaborate that "since you never contacted me"
means I would have been happy to provide assistance
and the name if the vendor would have done so with
some images of supporting information such as sourcing
from the same finder.
2. There is a clear difference between multi ton finds
that have ample documentation and a kilo find that has
had little publicity. Even then I agree that best
practices are to communicate leading me to
3. Point out that you were part of one of my
conversations about this in regard to the likely
Jikharra specimen you are referencing. You stated that
"The Jikharra’s obviously that." You are also well
aware that I am not selling any of the obviously
Jikharra until my own classification is approved
because you were part of the discussion.
4. You don't actually know where I sourced my material
because you did not ask. For example the
metbul mentioned many kilograms traded as Ghadamis
that was not in Marcin's possession. Since I bought
and traded Ghadamis before the name HaH 346 was
approved, how do you think I should have handled the
situation differently?
5. In regards to nwa 869 the following quote is from
the metbul "At least 2 metric tons of material
comprising thousands of individuals has been sold
under the name NWA 869 in the market places of Morocco
and around the world." along with the appropriate
caveats due to its abundance- "Scientists are advised
to confirm the classification of any specimens they
obtain before publishing results under this name."
So again I do not feel you are making an apples to
apples comparison with your critique of my logic.
We all obviously respect your encyclopedic
understanding of meteorites so perhaps you can share
with us your framework for best practices in these
situations.
Best regards,
Jason
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:21 PM Jason Utas
<meteorite...@gmail.com> wrote:
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: <p...@tucsonmeteorites.com>
To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite
Picture of the Day
Message-ID:
<b9fa8d09888b415e9bf201cb08e98...@secureserver.net>
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 <rrg85...@gmail.com>
To: bernd.pa...@paulinet.de
Cc: Meteorite Mailing List
<meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
Message-ID:
<CAGSP0MWZt2RtT_w=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
<humboldtbay...@gmail.com>
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
<mailto:caat9en4eebof8m_4p5anuoo9wo9%2b_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 Disputed (Paul)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700
> From: <p...@tucsonmeteorites.com>
> To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite
Picture of the Day
> Message-ID:
<e402350c7fb04bc489e974c560d88...@secureserver.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Wednesday, Mar 13 2024 Meteorite Picture
of the Day: Hamlet
>
> Contributed by: Anne Black
>
>
http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/13/2024
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:16:15 +0000
> From: Benzaki Mohamed
<kemkemexpedit...@gmail.com>
> To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite carbon
> Message-ID:
> <
>
cagzkz4-7hufr2n7mzy4hapufexcssju66gn+v9ajuxjkt8t...@mail.gmail.com
<mailto:cagzkz4-7hufr2n7mzy4hapufexcssju66gn%2bv9ajuxjkt8t...@mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi all members liste , I have a nice
carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if
> anyone interested please contacte me.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
>
https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240311/7131a467/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:48:20 +0100 (CET)
> From: bernd.pa...@paulinet.de
> To: "meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com"
>
<meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
> Message-ID:
<825781290.98647.1710366500...@www.ud-mail.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear List,
>
> It is my sad duty to inform you that
John Blennert has passed away :-(
>
> John, rest in peace!
>
> Bernd
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
>
https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/b5109823/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:16:00 -0500
> From: Paul <etchpl...@att.net>
> To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Claims of
Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific
> Ocean Site CNEOS 2014-01-08 Disputed
> Message-ID:
<088038b3-ec22-4815-b8fc-d187f665a...@att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Recently, a preprint has been posted to
the arXiv site that
>
> disputes proposal that Be,La,U-rich
spherules recovered form
>
> Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS 2014-01-0 are
from an extrasolar
>
> origin. Instead, they argued to be
microtektites of terrestrial
>
> lateritic sandstone.
>
> The preprint is:
>
> Desch, S., 2024. Be, La, U-rich spherules as
>
> microtektites of terrestrial laterites:
What goes \\
>
> up must come down. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2403.05161.
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05161
>
>
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2403/2403.05161.pdf
>
> The proposed extrasolar spherules are
discussed in:
>
> Loeb, A., Adamson, T., Bergstrom, S.,
Cloete, R.,
>
> Cohen, S., Conrad, K., Domine, L., Fu,
H., Hoskinson,
>
> C., Hyung, E., Jacobsen, S., Kelly, M.,
Kohn, J., Lard,
>
> E., Lam, S., Laukien, F., Lem, J.,
McCallum, R.,
>
> Millsap, R., Parendo, C., Petaev, M.,
Peddeti, C.,
>
> Pugh, K., Samuha, S., Sasselov, D.,
Schlereth, M.,
>
> Siler, J.J., Siraj, A., Smith, P.M.,
Tagle, R., Taylor,
>
> J., Weed, R., Wright, A., and Wynn, J.
2023.,
>
> Discovery of Spherules of likely
extrasolar composition
>
> in the Pacific Ocean site of the CNEOS
2014-01-08
>
> (IM1) bolide. arXiv preprint 2308.15623
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15623
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.15623.pdf
>
> Loeb, A., Adamson, T., Bergstrom, S.,
Cloete, R.,
>
> Cohen, S., Conrad, K., Domine, L., Fu, H.,
>
> Hoskinson, C., Hyung, E., Jacobsen, S.,
Kelly, M.,
>
> Kohn, J., Lard, E., Laukien, F., Lem,
J., McCallum, R.,
>
> Millsap, R., Parendo, C., Petaev, M.,
Peddeti, C.,
>
> Pugh, K., Samuha, S., Sasselov, D.,
Schlereth, M.,
>
> Siler, J.J., Siraj, A., Smith, P.M.,
Tagle, R., Taylor, J.,
>
> Weed, R., Wright, A., and Wynn, J. 2024.
Recovery
>
> and classification of spherules from the
Pacific Ocean
>
> site of the CNEOS 2014 January 8 (IM1)
bolide.
>
> Research Notes of the American
Astronomical Society 8: 39.
>
>
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ad2370/meta
>
> Related paper, reprint and press release:
>
> Desch, S., and Jackson, A., 2023.
Critique of arXiv
>
> submission 2308.15623, "Discovery of
Spherules of
>
> Likely Extrasolar Composition in the
Pacific Ocean
>
> Site of the CNEOS 2014-01-08 (IM1)
Bolide", by A.
>
> Loeb et al arXiv:2311.07699
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07699
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.07699.pdf
>
> 'Alien' spherules dredged from the
Pacific are probably just
>
> industrial pollution, new studies
suggest. LiveScience, Nov. 16, 2023
>
>
>
https://www.livescience.com/space/extraterrestrial-life/alien-spherules-dredged-from-the-pacific-are-probably-just-industrial-pollution-new-studies-suggest
>
> Gallardo, P.A., 2023. Anthropogenic Coal
Ash as a Contaminant
>
> in a Micro-meteoritic Underwater Search.
Research Notes of the
>
> AAS, 7(10), p.220.
>
>
http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2024/32/PhC_vol_32_Lomas.pdf
>
> Yours,
>
> Paul H.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
>
https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/4f81045c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
>
______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261,
Issue 14
>
***********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/5e27a1cd/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
------------------------------
End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261,
Issue 15
***********************************************
______________________________________________
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
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
