Re: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites
Hm. I said as much when I saw the Bondoc label on facebook some days ago. My comment describing the issue with the label has since been removed by Martin. The labels are computer-printed (notice the bottom of every g missing on the Bondoc label) and the font and underlining is wrong for AML labels. The pictured labels even use the typical European , instead of a . when describing the weights of the specimens [ xxx,x grams ]. And then there's the glossy paper... Painfully obvious fakes, probably made in Europe given the punctuation. I wonder where they came from...and why my observations were not only ignored, but erased. Jason www.fallsandfinds.com On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com wrote: I'm pretty sure the piece sold as Estherville is not a meteorite as well. It certainly does not match up with my other Estherville pieces. I would like to know where this material originated. The labels are fake, and I am highly disappointed that this stuff has entered the market. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On May 31, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Jeff Kuyken i...@meteorites.com.au wrote: Hi Mike, all, As an Aussie, I can say with 100% absolute certainty that this isn't Murchison. It's not even close. In fact, I'm actually wondering it's a meteorite at all as it looks more like some type of porphyritic rock. The only meteorite I have seen that looks even remotely like this would be a CV3 dark inclusion. But the rectangular fragment on the back side doesn't bode well for a chondritic meteorite either. It would be easier to tell in-person. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael Farmer Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:52 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites Martin, I am sorry but this IS NOT Murchison, and the Estherville IS NOT Estherville. I emailed you regarding the Murchison and the fact that the photos clearly show an NWA type old carbonaceous chondrite only minutes after you posted to the list, and got no response. Anyone who has ever laid eyes on Murchison knows that it does not have desert varnish on the outside, nor white chondrules and CAI's on a CV3 matrix. I feel sorry for whoever got burned on that one. You advertised the low price, I guess it is low because it is not Murchison. anyone reading this, feel free to speak up and tell us how this Murchison looks compared to real Murchison. http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_004.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_003.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_001.JPG I bought the Estherville which you claim is from American Meteorite Laboratory. I assumed since you advertised and showed a label that it was real, I was reading my email on an iphone while at the Laboratory in ASU, I showed the photo of the Murchison to the people in the lab who just laughed. My spider senses were not in order obviously because I went ahead and paid for the Estherville. I received it today, and it is NOT Estherville, I am pretty certain it is not a meteorite. The crust looks fake, or slaggy. I have more than 50 pieces of Estherville all from British Museum and Smithsonian, and this isn't close. Furthemore the lable is nothing more than a printed piece of paper laminated. I have the Nininger and Huss collections of meteorites books, and Estherville under Nininger is #42, Huss is H230. Again, some homework on my part would have caused me to not purchase this piece, but the price was good and I thought it would sell fast (I bought it in seconds). It is a firm reminder that something too cheap to be true, isn't! You piece has no number on the stone ( Nininger and Huss both would have matched the number on the label and painted it on the stone). And the AML number on the fake label is not matched up to their normal numbers (yours is (2) 680.501. This is not a Nininger or Huss number You claim in your email (attached with this one below for all to read), that these pieces have their passports IE American Meteorite Laboratory labels as provenance, yet you deliver to me a fake printed laminated label done on a computer. Martin, this is NOT PROVENANCE, this is pretty much outright FRAUD! I know you have been doing meteorites for a while, and I know Murchison is easily one of the easiest meteorites to identify, so I have to question what is going on when such a false piece can pass the hands of such an experienced seller? This Estherville is not an Estherville, it is not a Nininger or Huss piece as advertised, and I do not think it is even a meteorite. I put in a request for refund via paypal, and now I am making the same request publically. I don't know where you got these but you got burned. I will deliver it by hand
Re: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites
I was looking at the sale on my iPhone when I made the purchase. I never considered that Martin would pass me a fake label through his hands knowingly. I was busy and it was not a major purchase so I didn't look carefully enough. You can never say that this plastic modern label suggest in any way that these are AML pieces. However I am dead serious about my collection and the integrity of this business. As a dealer in meteorites, the loss of trust in material is the most dangerous thing that could happen. If we don't remove these fakes from the market, we are in trouble. I dont care who made it, but I can't believe Martin would ever sell such things. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPhone On Jun 1, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com wrote: Hm. I said as much when I saw the Bondoc label on facebook some days ago. My comment describing the issue with the label has since been removed by Martin. The labels are computer-printed (notice the bottom of every g missing on the Bondoc label) and the font and underlining is wrong for AML labels. The pictured labels even use the typical European , instead of a . when describing the weights of the specimens [ xxx,x grams ]. And then there's the glossy paper... Painfully obvious fakes, probably made in Europe given the punctuation. I wonder where they came from...and why my observations were not only ignored, but erased. Jason www.fallsandfinds.com On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com wrote: I'm pretty sure the piece sold as Estherville is not a meteorite as well. It certainly does not match up with my other Estherville pieces. I would like to know where this material originated. The labels are fake, and I am highly disappointed that this stuff has entered the market. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On May 31, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Jeff Kuyken i...@meteorites.com.au wrote: Hi Mike, all, As an Aussie, I can say with 100% absolute certainty that this isn't Murchison. It's not even close. In fact, I'm actually wondering it's a meteorite at all as it looks more like some type of porphyritic rock. The only meteorite I have seen that looks even remotely like this would be a CV3 dark inclusion. But the rectangular fragment on the back side doesn't bode well for a chondritic meteorite either. It would be easier to tell in-person. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael Farmer Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:52 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites Martin, I am sorry but this IS NOT Murchison, and the Estherville IS NOT Estherville. I emailed you regarding the Murchison and the fact that the photos clearly show an NWA type old carbonaceous chondrite only minutes after you posted to the list, and got no response. Anyone who has ever laid eyes on Murchison knows that it does not have desert varnish on the outside, nor white chondrules and CAI's on a CV3 matrix. I feel sorry for whoever got burned on that one. You advertised the low price, I guess it is low because it is not Murchison. anyone reading this, feel free to speak up and tell us how this Murchison looks compared to real Murchison. http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_004.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_003.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_001.JPG I bought the Estherville which you claim is from American Meteorite Laboratory. I assumed since you advertised and showed a label that it was real, I was reading my email on an iphone while at the Laboratory in ASU, I showed the photo of the Murchison to the people in the lab who just laughed. My spider senses were not in order obviously because I went ahead and paid for the Estherville. I received it today, and it is NOT Estherville, I am pretty certain it is not a meteorite. The crust looks fake, or slaggy. I have more than 50 pieces of Estherville all from British Museum and Smithsonian, and this isn't close. Furthemore the lable is nothing more than a printed piece of paper laminated. I have the Nininger and Huss collections of meteorites books, and Estherville under Nininger is #42, Huss is H230. Again, some homework on my part would have caused me to not purchase this piece, but the price was good and I thought it would sell fast (I bought it in seconds). It is a firm reminder that something too cheap to be true, isn't! You piece has no number on the stone ( Nininger and Huss both would have matched the number on the label and painted it on the stone). And the AML number on the fake label is not matched up to their normal numbers (yours is (2) 680.501. This is not a Nininger or Huss number You claim in your email (attached with this one
[meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites
Martin, I am sorry but this IS NOT Murchison, and the Estherville IS NOT Estherville. I emailed you regarding the Murchison and the fact that the photos clearly show an NWA type old carbonaceous chondrite only minutes after you posted to the list, and got no response. Anyone who has ever laid eyes on Murchison knows that it does not have desert varnish on the outside, nor white chondrules and CAI's on a CV3 matrix. I feel sorry for whoever got burned on that one. You advertised the low price, I guess it is low because it is not Murchison. anyone reading this, feel free to speak up and tell us how this Murchison looks compared to real Murchison. http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_004.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_003.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_001.JPG I bought the Estherville which you claim is from American Meteorite Laboratory. I assumed since you advertised and showed a label that it was real, I was reading my email on an iphone while at the Laboratory in ASU, I showed the photo of the Murchison to the people in the lab who just laughed. My spider senses were not in order obviously because I went ahead and paid for the Estherville. I received it today, and it is NOT Estherville, I am pretty certain it is not a meteorite. The crust looks fake, or slaggy. I have more than 50 pieces of Estherville all from British Museum and Smithsonian, and this isn't close. Furthemore the lable is nothing more than a printed piece of paper laminated. I have the Nininger and Huss collections of meteorites books, and Estherville under Nininger is #42, Huss is H230. Again, some homework on my part would have caused me to not purchase this piece, but the price was good and I thought it would sell fast (I bought it in seconds). It is a firm reminder that something too cheap to be true, isn't! You piece has no number on the stone ( Nininger and Huss both would have matched the number on the label and painted it on the stone). And the AML number on the fake label is not matched up to their normal numbers (yours is (2) 680.501. This is not a Nininger or Huss number You claim in your email (attached with this one below for all to read), that these pieces have their passports IE American Meteorite Laboratory labels as provenance, yet you deliver to me a fake printed laminated label done on a computer. Martin, this is NOT PROVENANCE, this is pretty much outright FRAUD! I know you have been doing meteorites for a while, and I know Murchison is easily one of the easiest meteorites to identify, so I have to question what is going on when such a false piece can pass the hands of such an experienced seller? This Estherville is not an Estherville, it is not a Nininger or Huss piece as advertised, and I do not think it is even a meteorite. I put in a request for refund via paypal, and now I am making the same request publically. I don't know where you got these but you got burned. I will deliver it by hand in Ensisheim or ship from Germany on the 19th when I am back in Europe. Please refund my money and I will close the case with paypal. Michael Farmer Below is the original ad saying these had AML documentation. I received a newly printed fake AML label. If you print it, it is NOT am AML label and to say it is a document is a clear fraud!. ___Dear Collectors, today we want to accelerate especially the heartbeat of the lovers of documented historic specimens, in setting up for sale two of such, which would be without doubt also very remarkable, if they wouldn't be accompanied by their passports of provenience, the labels of the American Meteorite Laboratory. The American Meteorite Laboratory (AML) was founded in 1960 in Westminster, Colorado by H.H.Nininger's daughter Margaret and her husband Glenn Huss, to reestablish and continue the work of her father with his American Meteorite Museum, which he had finally to shut down for financial reasons in 1953. The AML had such an outreach in the institutional and private meteorite scene, that it served even as an eponym for the meteorite dealers of the following generation, like e.g. the Suisse Meteorite Laboratory and the Bavarian Meteorite Laboratory. Instead of giving you here the hundredth instant-biography of Nininger or Huss, we rather like to honor: The women! Who so undeservedly are standing small and faint behind the gloriole of their husbands, who never would have achieved that, they are celebrated for, if there hadn't been the support by the passion, the patience, the knowledge and the special abilities of their wives.(see also post scriptum). Therefore you get here for reading the obit for Margaret Huss, who died in 2007: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_5878113 Now to
Re: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites
Since you asked: anyone reading this, feel free to speak up and tell us how this Murchison looks compared to real Murchison. Here is a picture of Murchison for comparison: http://www.impactika.com/catpix/ab745.jpg And is a picture of the crust of Murchison: http://www.impactika.com/catpix/as107.jpg Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- From: Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com To: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 8:52 pm Subject: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites Martin, I am sorry but this IS NOT Murchison, and the Estherville IS NOT Estherville. I emailed you regarding the Murchison and the fact that the photos clearly show an NWA type old carbonaceous chondrite only minutes after you posted to the list, and got no response. Anyone who has ever laid eyes on Murchison knows that it does not have desert varnish on the outside, nor white chondrules and CAI's on a CV3 matrix. I feel sorry for whoever got burned on that one. You advertised the low price, I guess it is low because it is not Murchison. anyone reading this, feel free to speak up and tell us how this Murchison looks compared to real Murchison. http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_004.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_003.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_001.JPG I bought the Estherville which you claim is from American Meteorite Laboratory. I assumed since you advertised and showed a label that it was real, I was reading my email on an iphone while at the Laboratory in ASU, I showed the photo of the Murchison to the people in the lab who just laughed. My spider senses were not in order obviously because I went ahead and paid for the Estherville. I received it today, and it is NOT Estherville, I am pretty certain it is not a meteorite. The crust looks fake, or slaggy. I have more than 50 pieces of Estherville all from British Museum and Smithsonian, and this isn't close. Furthemore the lable is nothing more than a printed piece of paper laminated. I have the Nininger and Huss collections of meteorites books, and Estherville under Nininger is #42, Huss is H230. Again, some homework on my part would have caused me to not purchase this piece, but the price was good and I thought it would sell fast (I bought it in seconds). It is a firm reminder that something too cheap to be true, isn't! You piece has no number on the stone ( Nininger and Huss both would have matched the number on the label and painted it on the stone). And the AML number on the fake label is not matched up to their normal numbers (yours is (2) 680.501. This is not a Nininger or Huss number You claim in your email (attached with this one below for all to read), that these pieces have their passports IE American Meteorite Laboratory labels as provenance, yet you deliver to me a fake printed laminated label done on a computer. Martin, this is NOT PROVENANCE, this is pretty much outright FRAUD! I know you have been doing meteorites for a while, and I know Murchison is easily one of the easiest meteorites to identify, so I have to question what is going on when such a false piece can pass the hands of such an experienced seller? This Estherville is not an Estherville, it is not a Nininger or Huss piece as advertised, and I do not think it is even a meteorite. I put in a request for refund via paypal, and now I am making the same request publically. I don't know where you got these but you got burned. I will deliver it by hand in Ensisheim or ship from Germany on the 19th when I am back in Europe. Please refund my money and I will close the case with paypal. Michael Farmer Below is the original ad saying these had AML documentation. I received a newly printed fake AML label. If you print it, it is NOT am AML label and to say it is a document is a clear fraud!. _ _ _Dear Collectors, today we want to accelerate especially the heartbeat of the lovers of documented historic specimens, in setting up for sale two of such, which would be without doubt also very remarkable, if they wouldn't be accompanied by their passports of provenience, the labels of the American Meteorite Laboratory. The American Meteorite Laboratory (AML) was founded in 1960 in Westminster, Colorado by H.H.Nininger's daughter Margaret and her husband Glenn Huss, to reestablish and continue the work of her father with his American Meteorite Museum, which he had finally to shut down for financial reasons in 1953. The AML had such an outreach in the institutional and private meteorite scene, that it served even as an eponym for the meteorite dealers of the following generation, like e.g. the Suisse
Re: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites
Hi Mike, all, As an Aussie, I can say with 100% absolute certainty that this isn't Murchison. It's not even close. In fact, I'm actually wondering it's a meteorite at all as it looks more like some type of porphyritic rock. The only meteorite I have seen that looks even remotely like this would be a CV3 dark inclusion. But the rectangular fragment on the back side doesn't bode well for a chondritic meteorite either. It would be easier to tell in-person. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael Farmer Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:52 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites Martin, I am sorry but this IS NOT Murchison, and the Estherville IS NOT Estherville. I emailed you regarding the Murchison and the fact that the photos clearly show an NWA type old carbonaceous chondrite only minutes after you posted to the list, and got no response. Anyone who has ever laid eyes on Murchison knows that it does not have desert varnish on the outside, nor white chondrules and CAI's on a CV3 matrix. I feel sorry for whoever got burned on that one. You advertised the low price, I guess it is low because it is not Murchison. anyone reading this, feel free to speak up and tell us how this Murchison looks compared to real Murchison. http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_004.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_003.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_001.JPG I bought the Estherville which you claim is from American Meteorite Laboratory. I assumed since you advertised and showed a label that it was real, I was reading my email on an iphone while at the Laboratory in ASU, I showed the photo of the Murchison to the people in the lab who just laughed. My spider senses were not in order obviously because I went ahead and paid for the Estherville. I received it today, and it is NOT Estherville, I am pretty certain it is not a meteorite. The crust looks fake, or slaggy. I have more than 50 pieces of Estherville all from British Museum and Smithsonian, and this isn't close. Furthemore the lable is nothing more than a printed piece of paper laminated. I have the Nininger and Huss collections of meteorites books, and Estherville under Nininger is #42, Huss is H230. Again, some homework on my part would have caused me to not purchase this piece, but the price was good and I thought it would sell fast (I bought it in seconds). It is a firm reminder that something too cheap to be true, isn't! You piece has no number on the stone ( Nininger and Huss both would have matched the number on the label and painted it on the stone). And the AML number on the fake label is not matched up to their normal numbers (yours is (2) 680.501. This is not a Nininger or Huss number You claim in your email (attached with this one below for all to read), that these pieces have their passports IE American Meteorite Laboratory labels as provenance, yet you deliver to me a fake printed laminated label done on a computer. Martin, this is NOT PROVENANCE, this is pretty much outright FRAUD! I know you have been doing meteorites for a while, and I know Murchison is easily one of the easiest meteorites to identify, so I have to question what is going on when such a false piece can pass the hands of such an experienced seller? This Estherville is not an Estherville, it is not a Nininger or Huss piece as advertised, and I do not think it is even a meteorite. I put in a request for refund via paypal, and now I am making the same request publically. I don't know where you got these but you got burned. I will deliver it by hand in Ensisheim or ship from Germany on the 19th when I am back in Europe. Please refund my money and I will close the case with paypal. Michael Farmer Below is the original ad saying these had AML documentation. I received a newly printed fake AML label. If you print it, it is NOT am AML label and to say it is a document is a clear fraud!. ___Dear Collectors, today we want to accelerate especially the heartbeat of the lovers of documented historic specimens, in setting up for sale two of such, which would be without doubt also very remarkable, if they wouldn't be accompanied by their passports of provenience, the labels of the American Meteorite Laboratory. The American Meteorite Laboratory (AML) was founded in 1960 in Westminster, Colorado by H.H.Nininger's daughter Margaret and her husband Glenn Huss, to reestablish and continue the work of her father with his American Meteorite Museum, which he had finally to shut down for financial reasons in 1953. The AML had such an outreach
Re: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites
I'm pretty sure the piece sold as Estherville is not a meteorite as well. It certainly does not match up with my other Estherville pieces. I would like to know where this material originated. The labels are fake, and I am highly disappointed that this stuff has entered the market. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On May 31, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Jeff Kuyken i...@meteorites.com.au wrote: Hi Mike, all, As an Aussie, I can say with 100% absolute certainty that this isn't Murchison. It's not even close. In fact, I'm actually wondering it's a meteorite at all as it looks more like some type of porphyritic rock. The only meteorite I have seen that looks even remotely like this would be a CV3 dark inclusion. But the rectangular fragment on the back side doesn't bode well for a chondritic meteorite either. It would be easier to tell in-person. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael Farmer Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:52 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized meteorites Martin, I am sorry but this IS NOT Murchison, and the Estherville IS NOT Estherville. I emailed you regarding the Murchison and the fact that the photos clearly show an NWA type old carbonaceous chondrite only minutes after you posted to the list, and got no response. Anyone who has ever laid eyes on Murchison knows that it does not have desert varnish on the outside, nor white chondrules and CAI's on a CV3 matrix. I feel sorry for whoever got burned on that one. You advertised the low price, I guess it is low because it is not Murchison. anyone reading this, feel free to speak up and tell us how this Murchison looks compared to real Murchison. http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_004.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_003.JPG http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_001.JPG I bought the Estherville which you claim is from American Meteorite Laboratory. I assumed since you advertised and showed a label that it was real, I was reading my email on an iphone while at the Laboratory in ASU, I showed the photo of the Murchison to the people in the lab who just laughed. My spider senses were not in order obviously because I went ahead and paid for the Estherville. I received it today, and it is NOT Estherville, I am pretty certain it is not a meteorite. The crust looks fake, or slaggy. I have more than 50 pieces of Estherville all from British Museum and Smithsonian, and this isn't close. Furthemore the lable is nothing more than a printed piece of paper laminated. I have the Nininger and Huss collections of meteorites books, and Estherville under Nininger is #42, Huss is H230. Again, some homework on my part would have caused me to not purchase this piece, but the price was good and I thought it would sell fast (I bought it in seconds). It is a firm reminder that something too cheap to be true, isn't! You piece has no number on the stone ( Nininger and Huss both would have matched the number on the label and painted it on the stone). And the AML number on the fake label is not matched up to their normal numbers (yours is (2) 680.501. This is not a Nininger or Huss number You claim in your email (attached with this one below for all to read), that these pieces have their passports IE American Meteorite Laboratory labels as provenance, yet you deliver to me a fake printed laminated label done on a computer. Martin, this is NOT PROVENANCE, this is pretty much outright FRAUD! I know you have been doing meteorites for a while, and I know Murchison is easily one of the easiest meteorites to identify, so I have to question what is going on when such a false piece can pass the hands of such an experienced seller? This Estherville is not an Estherville, it is not a Nininger or Huss piece as advertised, and I do not think it is even a meteorite. I put in a request for refund via paypal, and now I am making the same request publically. I don't know where you got these but you got burned. I will deliver it by hand in Ensisheim or ship from Germany on the 19th when I am back in Europe. Please refund my money and I will close the case with paypal. Michael Farmer Below is the original ad saying these had AML documentation. I received a newly printed fake AML label. If you print it, it is NOT am AML label and to say it is a document is a clear fraud!. ___Dear Collectors, today we want to accelerate especially the heartbeat of the lovers of documented historic specimens, in setting up for sale two of such, which would be without
