Rob,
Since you felt it necessary to step up, claim guilt and show disrespect
for
a leader in Meteoritics, I felt I had better respond publicly.
Dr. Irving has earned a Ph.D. and the Nom Com votes on his submissions. I
think these qualifications speak for themselves as far as qualifying
rocks.
Of course, the stones were brought back and analyzed properly, something
that you failed to do and then made up excuses for. I recently sent in 5
different type samples for the same type of meteorite because the
variances
made it unclear to me that they were part of the same event even though I
have seen thousands of meteorites. Every stone from NWA 2999 had a piece
removed, thin-sections made and were all studied. Every multiple stone
classification sharing the same nomenclature was voted on and approved.
The
Nom Com has made provisions for multiple stone entries. One only has to
read their submission forms to see this has been taken into consideration.
If the Nom Com accepts classifications from Cascadia, then I suggest
having
your material examined there as they would be more qualified then yourself
at making pairing judgements. Borrowing numbers and data to make stones
look like official meteorites is in poor taste and demonstrates a lack of
morals as far as I am concerned.
Since when has NWA 1877 ever sold for a thousand a gram? You may be
confusing it with NWA 1459 which is not paired, was the first Olivine
Diogenite in private hands and weighed less than a hundred grams. I see
you
stole information from an AGU copyrighted abstract, posted it on your site
and gave credit to NASA for it. Are you still dealing Campo as something
else? Get your facts straight before pointing you finger at others.
Adam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Wesel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Adam Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:20 PM
Subject: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)
Perhaps the term should be "Officially Sorted By A Scientist Over A Few
Beers" or "OSBASOAFB's"
Just what could Dr Irving do in the field that I can't do in my office.
Did
he have his field SEM with him, his field ion microprobe, his field
polarascope? Or was he a fish out of water without his lab relying on you
to
tell him what was and wasn't a meteorite?
And the MetSoc has no position on selling meteorites yet, though members
have been buying this material.
Jeff Grossman's own unedited words (he is the NomCom chair Adam if you
are
not familiar with his work):
"On the question of pairing... for most meteorites, pairing studies are
of
little scientific interest and not worth taking the time to do. Visual
pairings are almost worthless. For the important meteorites, pairings get
worked out in the scientific literature over time. This may be
unsettling
for some dealers, but that's the way it is."
So apply that to your "cutting parties" and the serious pairing work that
goes on Adam.
I could take these down to Cascadia tomorrow and say "whaddya think" and
it
would be no less official than yours.
and finally from Dr Grossman:
" It is acceptable and routine, however, for people to make statements
indicating that various numbered stones may be paired (although I would
be
cautious about believing such statements unless they appear in the
Bulletin
or other scientific publications)."
So don't proclaim IMCA standards as MetSoc/NomCom standards to me.
Enough was said earlier, you had to open it again.
And you bring up number borrowing, I paid for 20% of the cost to get NWA
1877 classified so it is just as much mine as yours.
Cheap, lazy, thieving, Clown...out :0)
Rob Wesel
http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com
------------------
We are the music makers...
and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
Willy Wonka, 1971
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)
> The excuse that I have 3,000 pieces of what looks like the same stone
> won't
> fly. As I stated before, every piece of NWA 1110 was examined by a Nom
> Com
> approved scientist. NWA 3118, which consisted of thousands of pieces
was
> thoroughly gone through by Dr. Irving in the field, in Morocco. Dr.
Bunch
> literally went through over 2,000 lbs. of my material in Denver taking
> three
> days to do so. Scientists help me to sort material at cutting parties.
> For
> the most part, they seem more than willing to go through large batches
of
> material. I have a new find consisting of several thousand pieces that
> with
> the help of Dr. Irving were sorted out and classified. Which would you
> rather have, a self proclaimed pairing or pieces that have been
> examined
> by
> a competant scientist?
>
> I am not trying to police any market, just stating that the standards
set
> by
> the I.M.C.A. and the Meteoritical Society serve a very important
purpose.
> Every other industry seems to have standards in place, why not
meteorites?
> If you agree to be a member of the I.M.C.A. you also agree to the
> standards
> set forth by the Meteoritical Society. A dealer who operates without
> standards is nothing more than a clown as far as I am concerned.
>
> Enough Said,
>
> Adam
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
