[meteorite-list] test
Test CJ IMCA# 3432 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.cjsmeteorites.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] BCC site
Hi, Just looked thru the BCC site for the first time - what an odd rant Sort of a mixture of scientific mumbo jumbo mixed with what looks to me like paranoic ravings. I guess we've all heard those raving derelicts in the street muttering and shouting into thin air - well, that's just what it looks like to me. Very odd. If the chap does genuinely think he has something to say then this is NOT the way to do it! Far too much emotion and anger on that site for anyone to take it seriously. Surely the simplest way for him to sort out is claim is to send samples to a few of the recognised analytical centres and collate and present the results - can't be that difficult. Seems he has plenty to go around. I also have to say that mentioning names such as Dr Rubin et al. in that context must be quite upsetting for all concerned - even Steve Shoner (sic - can't even bother to get his name right!) gets abused. Blimey, I believe in freedom of speech and all that but this is a odd. ho hum - the price of democracy I guess. very best! dave IMCA #0092 Sec. BIMS __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] my address
Mr. Adam Hupe thinks all his messages are extra special. That's a problem. But why enter the frey at all? I see the cats on a clothsline analogy in a lot of ways. Bill -- Original message -- From: drtanuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Bill, This is more exciting than Christmas!! When will they realize that they are cutting off their own noses in spite of their face? Why doesn`t Mr. Hupe have the guts to post his special message to the List? Please kindly keep me out of the fray on the list. Thank you. I always like to watch a good cat fight!!! Nothing like tying two cats` tails together and throwing them over a clothesline!! Cheers, Dirk...Tokyo __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] more about Mr. Moore
http://www.abqjournal.com/north/262036north_news11-21-04.htm?tease __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Wilcox Playa (Arizona) Meteorite
Hello Mark (and List), Point well taken. Hopefully we all have learned a lesson about putting into print assumed provisional numbers before they are assigned by Dr. Rhian Jones. But here are some safe assumptions that I would like the List to know about. You can safely assume that I would never speak for the Nomenclature Committee (Nom Comm). You can safely assume that, if I ever make statements about policies or procedures of the Nom Comm, I will make sure that they are current and factual. These statements will be based upon what I've learned from my numerous emails and phone conversations I've had with various Nom Comm members. But, in the case of these Wilcox Playa specimens, I made no assumptions. Before I sent my message to the List, I phoned Rhian and asked if she knew of any other Wilcox Playa finds that were up for name/number approval. Presently, there are only these two finds in the queue for a number approval. But now we need to say a few things about provisional numbers. Keep in mind that these provisional numbers are only relevant to areas of dense accumulation/concentration AND particularly for those from new localities. And once the Nom Comm votes to approve these numbers, there is no going back and changing them. But up until that vote, (say there is a common desire to maintain a chronological sequence to the numbers AND everyone agrees to it) provisional numbers can be changed. Also keep in mind that, for localities with already formally approved names-with-numbers, there is little that can be done to maintain the chronological order once meteorites (which were found earlier) are subsequently submitted for number approval. In this case, it's back to the same old whoever is first to the counter, gets the next number. And that is where we find ourselves, today, with these two Wilcox Playa finds. I find my self at that counter ready to get the next number. But there is nothing to stop me from stepping aside and letting that number go to the ~72gram stone, if it helps maintain their chronological sequence. Bob Verish --- MARK BOSTICK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Bob (and list), Bob noted: ..I made another WP find on 2004 March 07.. Congratulations on another find Bob. Bob asked, When was this find made? I was not sure last morning when I made that web page. Since then I have talked with the finder, his wife and his brother, who was in town at the time of the find, in order to try to get a good date. It was found in the fall of 2001. The brother thought October, but I was not able to confirm the month. Bob continued: ...If the ~72 gram stone was found prior to that date, it is WP 003, if found after that date, it will be WP 004 (again, assuming there are no other Wilcox Playa finds awaiting classification). Would I be correct in thinking it is Dr. Jones who assigns the U.S. number names? As you know Bob (which means I am typing this for the rest of the group), In a normal United States findor I guess I should say, in normal meteorite finds not from high collection areas, whoever owns the meteorite will usually submit it for a name, providing a couple appropriate names. These names are then voted on by the Met.Soc.Board. I remember you mentioned in an article a couple months ago (?) that any U.S. meteorite could get a provisional name whether classified or not, and you have implied that it is important for all meteorites to do such for chronological reasons. I wonder about such as I own a couple meteorites found by your team members without name/numbers, which would make personal cataloging easier. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] BCC site and BCCxxx coming soon; who will own the numbers?
Dear List and Dave in Constant Entropy, Thanks for the laugh! I also just read his wind yesterday. Before reading all that is posted on the web via websearch I thought that this was some sort of joke. Do a websearch and you will find micromike $50 autographs and $100 spoons from the famous BCC/Frass fall site. Also you will see the fossils/flowers that have been found within this puppy. There is also a posting from the Texas university about the problems this person has caused. Someone is short of a few brickslights are on but no one is there...short in the circuit Have a nice day! dirk...tokyo This is better than Proud Tom!! and sad but true. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my expeditions. The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers. Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title (as Dr Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not own numbers, but numbers are assigned to specific meteorite specimens and must not be used with other meteorites just because you heard or someone told you it is the same). Let's all please stop this practice as it is really hurting our business and hobby. Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. I perused eBay today and it is still rampant with sellers using numbers they seem to have drawn from a hat. So please ask you seller next time you buy something, how they got that number, who it was assigned to and if not them, just how they came to call it that. Mike Farmer __ 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
Re: [meteorite-list] my address
Bill, Why are you posting private messages to the list? Charlie __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] comments from a collecter
Lets see,MIKE vs. ADAM,BILL vs.ADAM,,BILL vs.MIKE,BOB vs.ADAM.Where will it all end.I know I am no saint, I know I have done some things that people do not like,but all these things going on are just unbelievable.I have 202 meteorites in my collection,all but 2 are classified.They have all specimen cards.To me there are 5 dealers you cannot go wrong with.HAAG,FARMER,THE HUPES',BLOOD,and ELLIOTT.To me these guys are the best in the business.If I had not been forced to sell off most of my collection 3 years ago,and had not traded and given away alot of stones,I would have had 1129 different locations.I have a complete record of every meteorite I have ever had.AND EVERYONE I HAVE HAD,DID COME WITH A SPECIMEN CARD.I just want to,It would be nice,if all this crap would just go away.I really believe that tucson next year might get VERY,VERY ugly.Everyone I have met in tucson are class acts.Lets keep it classy. steve arnold, chicago!! = Steve R.Arnold, Chicago, IL, 60120 I. M. C. A. MEMBER #6728 Illinois Meteorites website url http://stormbringer60120.tripod.com http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/illinoismeteorites/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Cave man
My grandmother's 3rd cousin's great great grandson is Jessie James of Monster Garage...think I could get a new scoot to ride? - Original Message - From: David Weir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: J. Devon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Cave man Hey Jeannie, The great-great-granddaughter of my 1st cousin's great-grandfather's sister is in that movie - now married to the Starr! It seems that at least Atouk and Lana survived the meteorite extinction event. David __ 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
[meteorite-list] NPA 04-16-1969 Elbert King Launches Meteorite Hunt
Paper: Lima News City: Lima, Ohio Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1969 Page: 6 Space Scientists Launch Rock Hunt By ROBERT D. DePIANTE World Book Science Service Like a Help Wanted ad, the notice in the lobby of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston reads: HELP NEEDED Let NASA Examine Your Meteorite Specimens The only scientific lab of its kind in the world uses that small sign to ask Americans' help in getting ready for its impending work of analyzing matter from out of this world. First, rocks from the moon; then - perhaps before the end of the century - material from other planets. Dr. Elbert A. King, curator of the LRL, explains it this way: The examination of meteorites prior to the moon landing will give our scientist practice, and allow us to compare material found in meteorites on Earth with material the astronauts bring back from the moon. Dr. King, and the other scientists at the lab are especially anxious to get recently fallen meteorites. The people most likely to find them are farmers, he explains. If a farmer happens across a new rock some morning when he's plowing a field - a rock that wasn't there last time he plowed - it could be a meteorite, and we'd love to get our hands on it. But the interest of the scientist isn't limited to recently fallen specimens. Any kind of meteorite will do Dr. King says, and we only need a small sample of it - about one ounce - to make our tests. Of course, we'd like to get the entire specimen, but if the person who has an object they suspect to be a meteorite just chips off a small bit that will do fine. Meteorites should be mailed to our lab. The address: Dr. E. A. King, TH; Lunar Receiving Laboratory, Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas 77058. As many as 200 million visible meteors enter Earth's atmosphere every day. Those that reach the surface before burning up are called meteorites, and scientists estimate that these bodies add more than two million pounds a day to the Earth's weight. How do you determine if a rock is a meteorite? Dr. King explains: Meteorites are classified as either iron, stony, or stony-iron. An iron meteorite is easily recognized because of its metallic appearance and heavy weight. It is generally rusty looking and irregular in shape, and has smooth depressions. Stony meteorites are more difficult to recognize. They are generally heavier than most rocks and the surface is usually brown or black. Most of the time, these meteorites have a crust, formed by the surface melting when the meteorite passed through the atmosphere. Freshly broken or cut stony meteorites commonly show tiny specks of metal. Of particular interest to NASA scientists are those meteorites which may have been dislodged from the moon. Scientists believe that fragments of the lunar surface are dislodged when meteoroids from other parts of the solar system strike the moon at high velocity. Some of these particles are then caught up in Earth gravity, and hit the surface as meteorites. Scientists have estimated that as much as 1-500th of all meteoritic material that reaches Earth has originated on the moon. Why do NASA scientists want meteorites? Because their origin is difficult to determine, critical analyses of their structure, composition, and physical characteristics are of great importance. Some meteorites have been exposed to long periods of intense cosmic and solar radiation while in space. If experiments could be performed on recently fallen meteorites, they would yield valuable information about radiation in space and could materially aid in planning for long - duration space missions. Immediate laboratory examination of meteorites splashed off the lunar surface would be useful in extending our knowledge of the moon. Samples are cut and ground into thin slices (00012 in.) in the laboratory. They are then examined with microscopes using polarized light. Further analyses determine the specific structure, composition, and identify of matter within the meteorite specimen. Dr. King says that any samples sent to the lab would be returned after initial testing. If the owner so desires, the specimen would not be damaged. Each contributor will be notified of the identification of his specimen. Objects which are found to be meteorites will be named after the town closest to the area were they were found and, if permitted, will be made part of the permanent collection at the Lunar Receiving Lab. (end) __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NPA 07-17-1969 Apollo May Unlock Mysteries, Elbert King Quote
Paper: Holland Evening Sentinel City: Holland, Michigan Date: Thursday, July 17, 1969 Page: 15 Apollo May Unlock Space Mysteries SPACE CENTER, Houston (UPI) - Apollo 11 is carrying what scientists think may be the keys that will unlock the mysteries of the solar system. The spaceships' primary mission is to land men on the moon, pick up samples of the lunar surface, and set out experiments that will work after the men leave for earth. Those experiments and the rock and dirt samples brought to earth may tell how the moon and the earth was formed. They could provide information about whether the universe is expanding, what causes earthquakes and what the sun is made of. As astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. and Michael Collins sped toward the moon, their main chores were a maneuver to line them up more accurately on their course and 15 minutes of television at 7:32 p.m. EDT from about 150,000 miles out. While the romance of the first manned landing on the moon captured the imagination of most people, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins know the scientific benefits of their flight are not to be overlooked. Probably the most significant scientific piece of data that we can bring back is some lunar material, said scientist-astronaut Don L. Lind prior to the flight. The astronauts plan to bring back more than 100 pounds of rocks and dirt for scientists to study. Study of the moon likely will be similar to geological study of the earth, said John W. Jack Small, chief of the space agency's lunar surface projects office. By studying the earth, you can get at the processes that formed the earth, he said. In studying the moon, you do the same thing. Dr. Elbert A. King of the Lunar and Earth Sciences Division of the space agency, said recently that density of the moon was different from the earth, leading to speculation it may have formed somewhere else in the galaxy and was captured by the earth's gravity. Or, he said, perhaps it was cast off from the earth after the earth was almost formed. Another possibility is that it formed separately from the earth but always have been nearby. Those things are still a subject of speculation and probably won't be solved at least until we see some direct samples from the lunar surface, he said. Among the experiments the astronauts are carrying toward the moon is a seismometer one scientists says is sensitive enough to detect the impact of a meteorite the size of a garden pea if it hits within a half a mile. The objective is simply to measure the seismic activity on the lunar surface, said Dr. Garry Latham of the Lamont Geological Observatory. We expert two sources of seismic activity: moonquakes, which have their counterpart in the familiar earthquake...and meteoroid impact. Latham said earth studies with seismographs have been the most successful in establishing the internal structure of the earth and we expect them to enjoy similar success in the study of the moon. Another scientific package is a target for laser beams from earth. It will reflect them back over exactly the same course they arrived. Scientists hope to use this device to measure the distance between the earth and moon as accurately as to within six inches. You know, the moon wobbles, and by measuring very accurately those wobbles, we can tell things about its moment of inertia and tell how the mass is distributed inside the moon, Lind said. Small said the measurements also could help predict and explain the moon's effect on earth's ocean tides. We will be able to study the wobble of the earth's axis...which has been ill understood but recently has been thought to be associated with the occurrence of major earthquakes, said Dr. C. O. Allen of the University of Maryland, one of the men who designed the experiment. Another experiment will examine the composition of the solar wind - particles of matter thrown off by the sun. Dr. Johannes Geiss of the University of Berne, Switzerland, says the results of this experiment should help determine exactly what the solar wind is and provide more knowledge about the makeup of the universe. The solar wind experiment looks like a piece of aluminum foil and the astronauts place it on the moon so it is directly in the rays of the sun. By the time the crew will retrieve the foil, about one billionth of an ounce of solar material should have been collected, Geiss said. The foil will be returned to earth aboard Apollo 11 and Geiss plans to analyze it in Switzerland. The general aim of these experiments will be in contributing to questions of the origin of the earth and its atmosphere, Geiss said. (end) __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NPA 07-28-1969 Begin Moon Rock Testing, Elbert King
Paper: The Daily Tribune City: Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin Date: Monday, July 28, 1969 Page: 14 Begin moon rock testing at Houston SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - A precious bit of soil dug from beneath the moon's surface begins a long series of tests today to determine whether it contains any biologically harmful bacteria. A few grains will be pulverized for exposure to germ-free mice. Other bits will be placed in a container and exposed to elements in the earth's atmosphere to determine any reaction. The material was taken from one of two core sampling tubes that Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. pushed five inches deep in lunar soil while he and Neil A. Armstrong explored the moon July 20. This sample was hurried to the bio-preparation section of an airtight lunar receiving laboratory here so experts can get an early reading on how it might affect the sterile mice. The results will help determine whether Armstrong, Aldrin and their flying companion Michael Collins, can be released from another part of the receiving lab on Aug. 11 as planned. If the mice develop a disease, the quarantine could be extended. Meanwhile, technicians continued the methodical job of canning and labeling the 15 pounds of rocks removed Saturday from one of two boxes the astronauts returned from the moon. The second box containing an estimated 37 pounds of moon treasure, will be opened in a day or two in the lab's vacuum chamber. When the first box was opened Saturday, scientists were initially frustrated by a coating of black moon dust that covered the rocks, hiding their secrets. But Sunday, they got a good look at one rock when the dust fell off as a technician, extending his hands through a glove-port in the vacuum chamber, lifted it for closer inspection under a microscope. It appears to be a fine grain igneous rock, with individual mineral grains visible on its surface, reported Dr. Elbert King, curator of the laboratory. Igneous means a rock hardened from a molten mass. It might have been born in a volcano. Or such a rock, hardened beneath the surface, might have been ripped up by a meteorite impact. The rock is small, 2 3/4 inches long, about 1 3/4 inches wide and a little less than an inch thick. One by one, all the rocks are being placed in small cans, sealed under vacuum, for later analysis and ultimate distribution in tiny pieces to 142 principal investigators around the world for full analyses. The samples will remain in quarantine here about two months before they are released. As the examination and canning continued, King said the moon dust covering the rocks certainly is now powered graphite, but its composition still is not determined. (end) Clear Skies, Mark Bostick http://www.meteoritearticles.com http://stores.ebay.com/meteoritearticles Reminders: PDF copy of this article, and others posted today, is available upon e-mail request. The NPA in the subject line, stands for Newspaper Article. I have been doing this to for use of the meteorite-list search engine: http://www.mail-archive.com/meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com/maillist.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NPA 10-12-1969 NASA Scientists, Engineers Argue Goals, Elbert King Quits
Paper: News Journal City: Mansfield, Ohio Date: Monday, October 12, 1969 Page: 2-D NASA Scientists, Engineers Argue Goals (EDITOR'S NOTE - Team effort has been the hallmark of America's successful space program. But, there is a little-publicized, underlying conflict between the scientists and the engineers involved in the planning and the accomplishments. AP Aerospace Writer Paul Recer discusses the basis of the controversy and its possible effects on the future of America's space program. By PAUL RECER SPACE CENTER, HOUSTON, Tex. (AP) - Hidden by the glory and back-slapping aftermath of the successful moon landing is a simmering dispute that is casting a shadow over this nation's space exploration program. Some observers believe the dispute may spill over into the halls of Congress and laboratories across the country. The argument revolves around the role of engineers vs. scientists in the space effort. There appears to be no happy middle ground. Engineers are a like little boys playing with their machines, says one scientists. They don't care about a damn thing but that their machines work right. As long as they do, they don't care if we learn another thing or not. The scientists want us to go to places on the moon today that we're not even sure we can go to safely. says an engineer, and then brush us off when we try to explain the problems. That can't see past their test tubes and academic credits. Several National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists believe that science has been forced into a back seat since the start of the space program and now what they call the engineer-oriented agency is reaping the bitter fruit of its neglect. Three prominent NASA scientists and a scientist-astronaut have resigned from the program is recent months. Dr. Wilmot Hess, chief scientists at the Manned Spacecraft Center; Dr. Elbert King, curator of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, and Dr. Donald Wise, a geologist at NASA headquarters, resigned within a few weeks of each other. King and Wise returned to academic communities and Hess moved over to a better-paying job in the Environmental Science Services Administration. Curt Michael, a scientist-astronaut, also resigned, taking a full-time position at Rice University in Houston. King, Wise and Michael were all critical of what one of them called an apathetic attitude toward science by NASA. NASA management and engineers give the impression outwardly that the scientists are content with the efforts being made to gain new knowledge through space travel. Many scientists, however, appear to be unhappy and accuse NASA of dragging its feet in developing the scientific potential of space travel. Several scientists have said that if efforts aren't made to increase the science return, there'll be little support from the science community when the time comes for NASA to seek funds from Congress. Both scientists and engineers agree that future flights tot he moon can be justified only by the scientific return. From there, the views separate and there seems to be little communication between the engineers and scientists. Our problem is how much science can you do on a given flight, says Christopher Kraft, director of flight operations and crack engineer. We want to keep it within a realm of reasonableness and safety. We've come a long way in satisfying their (the scientists) desires. They have not, says Dr. Persa Bell, director of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory and one of NASA's top scientists. I think they thought they were. I would hope that some of the recent changes (the resignations) would make that clear. But I'm not sure it has. There are 13 scientists-astronauts in NASA, yet none was named to crews for Apollos 12, 13 and 14. That was a very bad mistake, says Dr. Bell. What we need now is to begin to get some scientific examination of the lunar surface, to get better selection of samples. You really need people on the spot who have experience in the proper field. We just didn't see any good reason to do it. says Donald K. Slayton, the chief of flight crew operations. I guess we figure that any time we put anyone on the crew there ought to be a good reason for doing it. Moon landings are too hazardous now for the limited flying skills of the scientists-astronauts, he says. Dr. King said there was an overriding need for scientist-astronauts on the next few moon flights. I feel certainly that any scientist-astronaut who came from a physical sciences background would be much better prepared to make observations and interpret them during the time he's on the surface, than a pilot astronaut, said King. A dead scientist-astronaut is not going to do anybody any good, says Slayton. It sure as hell wouldn't make any sense t put a scientist on the next flight just to say we've got a scientist on board and then blow the whole
RE: [meteorite-list] my address
Mr. Adam Hupe is an honored, responsible and respected member of the meteorite community. A credential that will be on your wish list forever. CharlyV -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:54 AM To: drtanuki Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] my address Mr. Adam Hupe thinks all his messages are extra special. That's a problem. But why enter the frey at all? I see the cats on a clothsline analogy in a lot of ways. Bill -- Original message -- From: drtanuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Bill, This is more exciting than Christmas!! When will they realize that they are cutting off their own noses in spite of their face? Why doesn`t Mr. Hupe have the guts to post his special message to the List? Please kindly keep me out of the fray on the list. Thank you. I always like to watch a good cat fight!!! Nothing like tying two cats` tails together and throwing them over a clothesline!! Cheers, Dirk...Tokyo __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com __ 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
RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my expeditions. The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers. Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title (as Dr Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not own numbers, but numbers are assigned to specific meteorite specimens and must not be used with other meteorites just because you heard or someone told you it is the same). Let's all please stop this practice as it is really hurting our business and hobby. Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. I perused eBay today and it is still rampant with sellers using numbers they seem to have drawn from a hat. So please ask you seller next time you buy something, how they got that number, who it was assigned to and if not them, just how they came to call it that. Mike Farmer __ 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 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
Matt, Cooperation versus Haggling? Seems like a no brainer. It does seem like a real problem vexing intellegent, dedicated inividuals. Collaboration and compromise began a country that I am fortunate to live in. Can the Meteorite Community do the real work of tighting up the standards upon which we all depend and reap the rewards of credibility that we all desire? Jerry - Original Message - From: Matt Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 11:11 AM Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my expeditions. The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers. Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title (as Dr Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not own numbers, but numbers are assigned to specific meteorite specimens and must not be used with other meteorites just because you heard or someone told you it is the same). Let's all please stop this practice as it is really hurting our business and hobby. Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. I perused eBay today and it is still rampant with sellers using numbers they seem to have drawn from a hat. So please ask you seller next time you buy something, how they got that number, who it was assigned to and if not them, just how they came to call it that. Mike Farmer __ 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 __ 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
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
Hi Matt and list. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I think that part of the problem may also be that meteorites such as those belonging to the HED group are quite heterogeneous. If one sample contains a slightly higher diogenite component it may come back as a howardite while a sample with a lower diogenite component may come back as a eucrite. I would imagine that two samples from the same stone could conceivably come back with a different classification. If anyone can comment on this and correct me if I'm wrong I would appreciate it! Cheers -John Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my expeditions. The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers. Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title (as Dr Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not own numbers, but numbers are assigned to specific meteorite specimens and must not be used with other meteorites just because you heard or someone told you it is the same). Let's all please stop this practice as it is really hurting our business and hobby. Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. I perused eBay today and it is still rampant with sellers using numbers they seem to have drawn from a hat. So please ask you seller next time you buy something, how they got that number, who it was assigned to and if not them, just how they came to call it that. Mike Farmer __ 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 __ 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
RE: [meteorite-list] BCC site
But in USA does not exist an Institute where to denounce the persons that cheat the people? Here in Italy it exists and I ensure yourselves that they work a lot well. Here in Italy a person type Mr.BCC not have long live.. Matteo From: Dave Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: metlist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [meteorite-list] BCC site Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:48:34 + (GMT Standard Time) Hi, Just looked thru the BCC site for the first time - what an odd rant Sort of a mixture of scientific mumbo jumbo mixed with what looks to me like paranoic ravings. I guess we've all heard those raving derelicts in the street muttering and shouting into thin air - well, that's just what it looks like to me. Very odd. If the chap does genuinely think he has something to say then this is NOT the way to do it! Far too much emotion and anger on that site for anyone to take it seriously. Surely the simplest way for him to sort out is claim is to send samples to a few of the recognised analytical centres and collate and present the results - can't be that difficult. Seems he has plenty to go around. I also have to say that mentioning names such as Dr Rubin et al. in that context must be quite upsetting for all concerned - even Steve Shoner (sic - can't even bother to get his name right!) gets abused. Blimey, I believe in freedom of speech and all that but this is a odd. ho hum - the price of democracy I guess. very best! dave IMCA #0092 Sec. BIMS __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _ Filtri antispamming e antivirus per la tua casella di posta http://www.msn.it/msn/hotmail __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
I understand this completely, but what I am getting at is cooperation and sharing of data seems to happen very little or is non-existant. The researchers I have worked with in the past also made visual pairings (along with thin section work) if there were a large number of pieces. They also took really good digital photos of cut specimens and thin sections. These should be made available to others working on NWAs in some central depository. Pairings could be made visually in many cases by the proper authorities. Also I think the Total Known Weight should really be observerved for witnessed falls. I have always thought it was a lame statistic for finds and is constantly abused. It is one of the cruxes that the current argument re: name stealing/borrwing hinges about. Matt -Original Message- From: John Birdsell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 9:33 AM To: Matt Morgan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Hi Matt and list. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I think that part of the problem may also be that meteorites such as those belonging to the HED group are quite heterogeneous. If one sample contains a slightly higher diogenite component it may come back as a howardite while a sample with a lower diogenite component may come back as a eucrite. I would imagine that two samples from the same stone could conceivably come back with a different classification. If anyone can comment on this and correct me if I'm wrong I would appreciate it! Cheers -John Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my expeditions. The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers. Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title (as Dr Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not own numbers, but numbers are assigned to specific meteorite specimens and must not be used with other meteorites just because you heard or someone told you it is the same). Let's all please stop this practice as it is really hurting our business and hobby. Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
Hi Jerry and Matt and list I believe you both hit on some good concepts. It would, because of value to research, behove a buyer or finder of a special and potentially expensive meteorite, to have it classified, regardless of costs so that a better picture of the solar system and interest in doing such is the end result. With the letter about NASA and its failed/canceled projects, one can make a great arguement for such an endevor. It might also come to pass, with some good selling from the community, that such meteorites which carry an interest for research, get low or no cost analysis from NASA. Much cheaper than designing and making a window for a remote probe's spectrometer! Of course, controls will be needed to keep NASA from being flooded with requests for common stones, and so maybe a lessor University which hasn't the equipment to do qualified analysis but has the personnel to determine validity of the stone would be grateful to recieve a little extra grant money to do the screening. Just something from nowhere in south-east backwater Kentucky Mark - Original Message - From: GERALD FLAHERTY [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matt Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Matt, Cooperation versus Haggling? Seems like a no brainer. It does seem like a real problem vexing intellegent, dedicated inividuals. Collaboration and compromise began a country that I am fortunate to live in. Can the Meteorite Community do the real work of tighting up the standards upon which we all depend and reap the rewards of credibility that we all desire? Jerry - Original Message - From: Matt Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 11:11 AM Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my expeditions. The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers. Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title (as Dr Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not own numbers, but numbers are assigned to specific meteorite specimens and must not be used with other meteorites just because you heard or someone told you it is the same). Let's all please stop this practice as it is really hurting our business and hobby.
[meteorite-list] NWA 1110 is this so complicated?
Maybe I'm missing something. Wouldn't this whole dispute go away if Bob Evans simply changed his description to read: Guaranteed Martian Meteorite, likely paired to NWA 1110 and 1068? Mike Fowler Chicago -- Adam You are such a friggin joke, I really cant understand how you can publicly make such an ass out of yourself. How can you really accuse other people of such atrocities as you commit them yourself? Aren't you selling NWA 788 on ebay currently? Wasn't it Mike Farmer who had that meteorite classified? Why is it justifiable for you ? I've seen you sell other meteorites as well such as NWA 869.You didnt have that one classified either, did you? Why don't you need to have your samples paired?? ANSWER THIS What was the source of your specimens? How do you know that they are indeed what you say they are? You couldn't possibly have every sample analyzed, could you? Quit being such a hypocritical prick and bring on your attorney BE - Original Message - From: Adam Hupe raremeteorites at comcast.net To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:51 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Bob Evans Still Committing Fraud Dear List, This is a public warning to Bob Evans to stop using the NWA 1110 and NWA 1877 designations and meteoritelab descriptions. I filed a blanket complaint claim with ebay and found out that it is considered fraudulent to use lab numbers that do not apply to your samples. It is also against the law to steal copyrighted descriptions. It took me weeks to explain to ebay what is involved with getting numbers assigned to NWA meteorites. I will start pulling the trigger soon on this kind of fraud starting with Bob Evans. If ebay gets too many complaints the meteorite subsection might be reconsidered (eliminated). That is why I am posting this message publicly to avoid continued contact with ebay. Here are two of the many fraudulent auctions Bob Evans is involved in: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItemcategory=3239item=2287562058 rd=1ssPageName=WDVW http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItemcategory=3239item=2287562068 rd=1ssPageName=WDVW Consider this warning to edit your numbers and descriptions to reflect the truth or I will report this fraud to ebay when I return tomorrow. My attorney gave me the green light to start pursuing these cases and I will exercise my options. Wishing everybody else the best, __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
There are several reasons for this result. Among these are: 1) Not all scientists are equally skilled at classifying meteorites. 2) Not all samples are representative of the whole. It used to be that a lab would have the entire mass to examine and could see the entire structure. With meteorites in commercial hands, they often just get a small chip. Given that lots of chondrites and achondrites are breccias, this can be a problem. 3) Some meteorites are borderline between types. Many of us try to make a decision as to which it is, and two people might come down on opposite sides of the line. If it actually matters, somebody will do careful work and publish on the subject. In most cases the error doesn't matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort happen. 4) Nobody has ever standardized the way that brecciated meteorites should be described. Someday this will be fixed. 5) Some areas of meteorite classification are controversial (e.g., the use of type 7). We already have a consortium of labs... it is all of those labs that agree to house type specimens and make them available for research whenever an important scientific question arises. We already have a network for data sharing... it includes the Meteoritical Bulletin and the numerous scientific journals that publish abstracts and peer-reviewed research. If there is a need for a repository of photos, for example, one could be set up in short order. Is there? 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. jeff At 11:11 AM 11/21/2004, Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my expeditions. The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers. Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title (as Dr Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not own numbers, but numbers are assigned to specific meteorite specimens and must not be used with other meteorites just because you heard or someone told you it is the same). Let's all please stop this practice as it is really
RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
Also I think the Total Known Weight should really be observerved for witnessed falls. Yes I agree, I have made this point before, with a classified NWA the weight is fixed to the piece/s classified so it's the total weight not the total known weight. Ken O'Neill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Morgan Sent: 21 November 2004 16:48 To: 'John Birdsell' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers I understand this completely, but what I am getting at is cooperation and sharing of data seems to happen very little or is non-existant. The researchers I have worked with in the past also made visual pairings (along with thin section work) if there were a large number of pieces. They also took really good digital photos of cut specimens and thin sections. These should be made available to others working on NWAs in some central depository. Pairings could be made visually in many cases by the proper authorities. Also I think the Total Known Weight should really be observerved for witnessed falls. I have always thought it was a lame statistic for finds and is constantly abused. It is one of the cruxes that the current argument re: name stealing/borrwing hinges about. Matt -Original Message- From: John Birdsell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 9:33 AM To: Matt Morgan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Hi Matt and list. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I think that part of the problem may also be that meteorites such as those belonging to the HED group are quite heterogeneous. If one sample contains a slightly higher diogenite component it may come back as a howardite while a sample with a lower diogenite component may come back as a eucrite. I would imagine that two samples from the same stone could conceivably come back with a different classification. If anyone can comment on this and correct me if I'm wrong I would appreciate it! Cheers -John Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my expeditions. The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers. Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title (as Dr Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
Hello Jeff and thanks for your email. I think a repository of high quality photos of type specimens would be extremely useful for the entire meteorite community. Cheers -John Jeff Grossman wrote: There are several reasons for this result. Among these are: 1) Not all scientists are equally skilled at classifying meteorites. 2) Not all samples are representative of the whole. It used to be that a lab would have the entire mass to examine and could see the entire structure. With meteorites in commercial hands, they often just get a small chip. Given that lots of chondrites and achondrites are breccias, this can be a problem. 3) Some meteorites are borderline between types. Many of us try to make a decision as to which it is, and two people might come down on opposite sides of the line. If it actually matters, somebody will do careful work and publish on the subject. In most cases the error doesn't matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort happen. 4) Nobody has ever standardized the way that brecciated meteorites should be described. Someday this will be fixed. 5) Some areas of meteorite classification are controversial (e.g., the use of type 7). We already have a consortium of labs... it is all of those labs that agree to house type specimens and make them available for research whenever an important scientific question arises. We already have a network for data sharing... it includes the Meteoritical Bulletin and the numerous scientific journals that publish abstracts and peer-reviewed research. If there is a need for a repository of photos, for example, one could be set up in short order. Is there? 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. jeff At 11:11 AM 11/21/2004, Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my expeditions. The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers. Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title (as Dr Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not own numbers, but numbers are
[meteorite-list] Repository of photos...
Hi Jeff, et al, Regarding a repository of photos, I too think it would be extraordinarily useful. To this end, I noticed that Marvin Kilgore has a book in press to partially satisfy this need. It would be nice to have some professional reviews of it. Jeff, Alan, are you game? Marvin had a galley proof at the Costa Mesa show. Perhaps he'd loan a copy for review? Cheers, Nick At 10:34 AM 11/21/2004, John Birdsell wrote: Hello Jeff and thanks for your email. I think a repository of high quality photos of type specimens would be extremely useful for the entire meteorite community. Cheers -John Jeff Grossman wrote: There are several reasons for this result. Among these are: 1) Not all scientists are equally skilled at classifying meteorites. 2) Not all samples are representative of the whole. It used to be that a lab would have the entire mass to examine and could see the entire structure. With meteorites in commercial hands, they often just get a small chip. Given that lots of chondrites and achondrites are breccias, this can be a problem. 3) Some meteorites are borderline between types. Many of us try to make a decision as to which it is, and two people might come down on opposite sides of the line. If it actually matters, somebody will do careful work and publish on the subject. In most cases the error doesn't matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort happen. 4) Nobody has ever standardized the way that brecciated meteorites should be described. Someday this will be fixed. 5) Some areas of meteorite classification are controversial (e.g., the use of type 7). We already have a consortium of labs... it is all of those labs that agree to house type specimens and make them available for research whenever an important scientific question arises. We already have a network for data sharing... it includes the Meteoritical Bulletin and the numerous scientific journals that publish abstracts and peer-reviewed research. If there is a need for a repository of photos, for example, one could be set up in short order. Is there? 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. jeff At 11:11 AM 11/21/2004, Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world
AW: [meteorite-list] Repository of photos...
:-) I think you will be getting tired of hearing this, but I invested a lot of time to create a free repository for meteorite photos at http://www.meteoritegallery.com I know this doesn't fit scientific standards, but hey, it's a beginning and could be very useful at least for collectors wanting to know how a certain meteorite looks like. That is, if people upload pics there. All I can say is: USE IT, FOLKS. Bernhard -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Nicholas Gessler Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. November 2004 19:48 An: John Birdsell; Jeff Grossman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [meteorite-list] Repository of photos... Hi Jeff, et al, Regarding a repository of photos, I too think it would be extraordinarily useful. To this end, I noticed that Marvin Kilgore has a book in press to partially satisfy this need. It would be nice to have some professional reviews of it. Jeff, Alan, are you game? Marvin had a galley proof at the Costa Mesa show. Perhaps he'd loan a copy for review? Cheers, Nick At 10:34 AM 11/21/2004, John Birdsell wrote: Hello Jeff and thanks for your email. I think a repository of high quality photos of type specimens would be extremely useful for the entire meteorite community. Cheers -John Jeff Grossman wrote: There are several reasons for this result. Among these are: 1) Not all scientists are equally skilled at classifying meteorites. 2) Not all samples are representative of the whole. It used to be that a lab would have the entire mass to examine and could see the entire structure. With meteorites in commercial hands, they often just get a small chip. Given that lots of chondrites and achondrites are breccias, this can be a problem. 3) Some meteorites are borderline between types. Many of us try to make a decision as to which it is, and two people might come down on opposite sides of the line. If it actually matters, somebody will do careful work and publish on the subject. In most cases the error doesn't matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort happen. 4) Nobody has ever standardized the way that brecciated meteorites should be described. Someday this will be fixed. 5) Some areas of meteorite classification are controversial (e.g., the use of type 7). We already have a consortium of labs... it is all of those labs that agree to house type specimens and make them available for research whenever an important scientific question arises. We already have a network for data sharing... it includes the Meteoritical Bulletin and the numerous scientific journals that publish abstracts and peer-reviewed research. If there is a need for a repository of photos, for example, one could be set up in short order. Is there? 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. jeff At 11:11 AM 11/21/2004, Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
good quality and color of thin sections would be good as well. Heres a link to one such example of plane and polarized light thinsection. http://gmr.minsocam.org/Examples/XPolars.html Mark - Original Message - From: John Birdsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Hello Jeff and thanks for your email. I think a repository of high quality photos of type specimens would be extremely useful for the entire meteorite community. Cheers -John Jeff Grossman wrote: There are several reasons for this result. Among these are: 1) Not all scientists are equally skilled at classifying meteorites. 2) Not all samples are representative of the whole. It used to be that a lab would have the entire mass to examine and could see the entire structure. With meteorites in commercial hands, they often just get a small chip. Given that lots of chondrites and achondrites are breccias, this can be a problem. 3) Some meteorites are borderline between types. Many of us try to make a decision as to which it is, and two people might come down on opposite sides of the line. If it actually matters, somebody will do careful work and publish on the subject. In most cases the error doesn't matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort happen. 4) Nobody has ever standardized the way that brecciated meteorites should be described. Someday this will be fixed. 5) Some areas of meteorite classification are controversial (e.g., the use of type 7). We already have a consortium of labs... it is all of those labs that agree to house type specimens and make them available for research whenever an important scientific question arises. We already have a network for data sharing... it includes the Meteoritical Bulletin and the numerous scientific journals that publish abstracts and peer-reviewed research. If there is a need for a repository of photos, for example, one could be set up in short order. Is there? 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. jeff At 11:11 AM 11/21/2004, Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my likely paired howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab, specimens I know are paired. While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks this of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt by all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with incessant pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But this is what we do...for now. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the meteorite world right now, I
Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Repository of photos...
Bernhard, Tired of hearing this? Not at all! I need constant reminding... And I'm sure there are new subscribers all the time as well as old subscribers whose interests change... Thanks, Nick At 10:55 AM 11/21/2004, Bernhard Rems wrote: :-) I think you will be getting tired of hearing this, but I invested a lot of time to create a free repository for meteorite photos at http://www.meteoritegallery.com I know this doesn't fit scientific standards, but hey, it's a beginning and could be very useful at least for collectors wanting to know how a certain meteorite looks like. That is, if people upload pics there. All I can say is: USE IT, FOLKS. Bernhard -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Nicholas Gessler Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. November 2004 19:48 An: John Birdsell; Jeff Grossman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [meteorite-list] Repository of photos... Hi Jeff, et al, Regarding a repository of photos, I too think it would be extraordinarily useful. To this end, I noticed that Marvin Kilgore has a book in press to partially satisfy this need. It would be nice to have some professional reviews of it. Jeff, Alan, are you game? Marvin had a galley proof at the Costa Mesa show. Perhaps he'd loan a copy for review? Cheers, Nick At 10:34 AM 11/21/2004, John Birdsell wrote: Hello Jeff and thanks for your email. I think a repository of high quality photos of type specimens would be extremely useful for the entire meteorite community. Cheers -John Jeff Grossman wrote: There are several reasons for this result. Among these are: 1) Not all scientists are equally skilled at classifying meteorites. 2) Not all samples are representative of the whole. It used to be that a lab would have the entire mass to examine and could see the entire structure. With meteorites in commercial hands, they often just get a small chip. Given that lots of chondrites and achondrites are breccias, this can be a problem. 3) Some meteorites are borderline between types. Many of us try to make a decision as to which it is, and two people might come down on opposite sides of the line. If it actually matters, somebody will do careful work and publish on the subject. In most cases the error doesn't matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort happen. 4) Nobody has ever standardized the way that brecciated meteorites should be described. Someday this will be fixed. 5) Some areas of meteorite classification are controversial (e.g., the use of type 7). We already have a consortium of labs... it is all of those labs that agree to house type specimens and make them available for research whenever an important scientific question arises. We already have a network for data sharing... it includes the Meteoritical Bulletin and the numerous scientific journals that publish abstracts and peer-reviewed research. If there is a need for a repository of photos, for example, one could be set up in short order. Is there? 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. jeff At 11:11 AM 11/21/2004, Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike: Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see tonight. So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat lab fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like it one bit but that's what we
RE: [meteorite-list] Repository of photos...
Berhard: This is a great resource, but the archive we need should be to scientific standards. For example each photo should at least have a scale, name, principal scientist who classified it (with email), size of the piece classified, and links to any chemistry that was done along with thin section observations. Photos of hand specimen and thin section would be great. It seems that NAU has a fledgling archive. Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernhard Rems Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 11:55 AM To: 'Nicholas Gessler' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [meteorite-list] Repository of photos... :-) I think you will be getting tired of hearing this, but I invested a lot of time to create a free repository for meteorite photos at http://www.meteoritegallery.com I know this doesn't fit scientific standards, but hey, it's a beginning and could be very useful at least for collectors wanting to know how a certain meteorite looks like. That is, if people upload pics there. All I can say is: USE IT, FOLKS. Bernhard -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Nicholas Gessler Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. November 2004 19:48 An: John Birdsell; Jeff Grossman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [meteorite-list] Repository of photos... Hi Jeff, et al, Regarding a repository of photos, I too think it would be extraordinarily useful. To this end, I noticed that Marvin Kilgore has a book in press to partially satisfy this need. It would be nice to have some professional reviews of it. Jeff, Alan, are you game? Marvin had a galley proof at the Costa Mesa show. Perhaps he'd loan a copy for review? Cheers, Nick At 10:34 AM 11/21/2004, John Birdsell wrote: Hello Jeff and thanks for your email. I think a repository of high quality photos of type specimens would be extremely useful for the entire meteorite community. Cheers -John Jeff Grossman wrote: There are several reasons for this result. Among these are: 1) Not all scientists are equally skilled at classifying meteorites. 2) Not all samples are representative of the whole. It used to be that a lab would have the entire mass to examine and could see the entire structure. With meteorites in commercial hands, they often just get a small chip. Given that lots of chondrites and achondrites are breccias, this can be a problem. 3) Some meteorites are borderline between types. Many of us try to make a decision as to which it is, and two people might come down on opposite sides of the line. If it actually matters, somebody will do careful work and publish on the subject. In most cases the error doesn't matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort happen. 4) Nobody has ever standardized the way that brecciated meteorites should be described. Someday this will be fixed. 5) Some areas of meteorite classification are controversial (e.g., the use of type 7). We already have a consortium of labs... it is all of those labs that agree to house type specimens and make them available for research whenever an important scientific question arises. We already have a network for data sharing... it includes the Meteoritical Bulletin and the numerous scientific journals that publish abstracts and peer-reviewed research. If there is a need for a repository of photos, for example, one could be set up in short order. Is there? 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. jeff At 11:11 AM 11/21/2004, Matt Morgan wrote: Just to add a note... There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites. Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances are you will get different results. For instance, I have L5's that came back as L4's and L6's. Regolith this and Primitive that. I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR eucrite. I understand some of it is interpretive. The system itself is flawed. Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type specimens on hand. This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role. So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite data sharing? It will make ALL our lives easier... Matt Morgan Mile High Meteorites -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wesel Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM To: Michael Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the collector, truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike:
[meteorite-list] NEW H7 For Sale
At the request of some collectors and the sugestion of Ted Bunch I am happy to say we have a NEW H7 from Morocco NWA 2353 For thoes who would like a slice of this new find the price is $200 per gram and I will cut to your needs . Anyone interested may contact me by email direct. A picture of the specimen is on my web site. http://www.arn-meteorites.com Northwest Africa Purchased 2004 Primitive Achondrite (recrystalled H chondrite) A single, poorly crusted stone of 580 g was purchased in Erfoud, Morocco. Description and classification (T. Bunch and J. Wittke, NAU): completely recrystallized and highly equilibrated H chondrite (H7), no relict chondrules; grain size 0.5 mm, mean = 0.2 mm; intensely fractured with abundance of subparallel compression fractures. Olivine, Fa 17.9, FeO/MnO = 34; orthopyroxene, Fs15.6Wo3.1, FeO/MnO = 19; plagioclase, An13.1Or2.6; chromite, cr# = 87; FeS, Ni = 1.65 wt %; metal (taenite only), Ni = 21.6 wt %; trace of merrilite. Weathering grade, W3 and lightly shocked (S2). Specimens: type specimen, 20.1 g, NAU; main mass, Regelman. __ The above is a working classification and will be submitted shortly to the Nom Com after receipt of oxygen isotope data. T. E. Bunch Professor of Geology Northern Arizona University Nov. 20, 2004 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] NEW H7 For Sale
Good Job Ken! An H7 (primitive achondrite), what a very rare find! Considering the rarity of this specimen $200.00 a gram seems very reasonable. Any chance of a trade/part trade? Kind Regards, Adam Hupe The Hupe Collection Team LunarRock IMCA 2185 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: AstronomicalResearchNetwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:05 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] NEW H7 For Sale At the request of some collectors and the sugestion of Ted Bunch I am happy to say we have a NEW H7 from Morocco NWA 2353 For thoes who would like a slice of this new find the price is $200 per gram and I will cut to your needs . Anyone interested may contact me by email direct. A picture of the specimen is on my web site. http://www.arn-meteorites.com Northwest Africa Purchased 2004 Primitive Achondrite (recrystalled H chondrite) A single, poorly crusted stone of 580 g was purchased in Erfoud, Morocco. Description and classification (T. Bunch and J. Wittke, NAU): completely recrystallized and highly equilibrated H chondrite (H7), no relict chondrules; grain size 0.5 mm, mean = 0.2 mm; intensely fractured with abundance of subparallel compression fractures. Olivine, Fa 17.9, FeO/MnO = 34; orthopyroxene, Fs15.6Wo3.1, FeO/MnO = 19; plagioclase, An13.1Or2.6; chromite, cr# = 87; FeS, Ni = 1.65 wt %; metal (taenite only), Ni = 21.6 wt %; trace of merrilite. Weathering grade, W3 and lightly shocked (S2). Specimens: type specimen, 20.1 g, NAU; main mass, Regelman. __ The above is a working classification and will be submitted shortly to the Nom Com after receipt of oxygen isotope data. T. E. Bunch Professor of Geology Northern Arizona University Nov. 20, 2004 __ 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
[meteorite-list] Thanks for the honest answer Dr. Grossman
I'd like to take a minute to thank Dr. Grossman, the only SCIENTIST to comment on this issue. If you sit down and read it, it speaks volumes. A list of five reasons why classifications/pairings can differ and why In most cases the error doesn't matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort happen. At last, a NON-COMMERCIAL answer. And the bitter bitter finale: 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. Little SCIENTIFIC interest, visual pairingsWORTHLESS WAIT A MINUTE, WASN'T NWA 111O VISUALLY PAIRED? Careful Dr.Grossman, you could get sued for a statement like that. Don't think for a second folks that this is a scientific fight, Dr. Grossman's post is there to read, read it. It is the only unbiased post to date. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
AW: [meteorite-list] Thanks for the honest answer Dr. Grossman
Rob, what I will write isn't from a scientific point of view. I am no scientist. I am a collector. So what I will write is from a collector's point of view. With no meteorite I have ever bought on ebay or elsewhere, I got proof that what was sold to me was actually what it was advertised to be. It's hard to proof it, even the so called certificates of authenticy are nothing more than paper, since there is only one person in the world who can guarantee that the meteorite is what he is said to be: the original holder of the classified material. So, when there is no proof - the only thing that remains is trust. I have to trust the seller that he sells me what he tells me. If this trust is shaken by something, I will stay away from him in the future. There are two easy questions I want to ask you: 1) How can you PROOF you sell NWA 1110 when you sell NWA 1110? Just tell me what proofs for YOU that you are selling NWA 1110. 2) How can you be sure that the material you are selling is martian? Just tell me what proofs for YOU that you are selling a martian meteorite with NWA 1110. Answer them in a way that makes me trust in you. I assume that when you bought that material, you asked the seller the same questions, right? Bernhard __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Wilcox Playa [sic - Willcox Playa ] (Arizona) Meteorite
This message is only being sent to correct a previous typographical error. The purpose of all this is to help in the retrieval of this thread whenever a Search Engine is queried for Willcox Playa. Otherwise, please disregard this message. I apologize for this inconvenience, Bob Verish --- [meteorite-list] Willcox Playa (Arizona) Meteorite Robert Verish bolidechaser at yahoo.com Sun Nov 21 04:04:41 EST 2004 Hello Mark (and List), Point well taken. Hopefully we all have learned a lesson about putting into print assumed provisional numbers before they are assigned by Dr. Rhian Jones. But here are some safe assumptions that I would like the List to know about. You can safely assume that I would never speak for the Nomenclature Committee (Nom Comm). You can safely assume that, if I ever make statements about policies or procedures of the Nom Comm, I will make sure that they are current and factual. These statements will be based upon what I've learned from my numerous emails and phone conversations I've had with various Nom Comm members. But, in the case of these Willcox Playa specimens, I made no assumptions. Before I sent my message to the List, I phoned Rhian and asked if she knew of any other Willcox Playa finds that were up for name/number approval. Presently, there are only these two finds in the queue for a number approval. But now we need to say a few things about provisional numbers. Keep in mind that these provisional numbers are only relevant to areas of dense accumulation/concentration AND particularly for those from new localities. And once the Nom Comm votes to approve these numbers, there is no going back and changing them. But up until that vote, (say there is a common desire to maintain a chronological sequence to the numbers AND everyone agrees to it) provisional numbers can be changed. Also keep in mind that, for localities with already formally approved names-with-numbers, there is little that can be done to maintain the chronological order once meteorites (which were found earlier) are subsequently submitted for number approval. In this case, it's back to the same old whoever is first to the counter, gets the next number. And that is where we find ourselves, today, with these two Willcox Playa finds. I find my self at that counter ready to get the next number. But there is nothing to stop me from stepping aside and letting that number go to the ~72gram stone, if it helps maintain their chronological sequence. Bob Verish --- MARK BOSTICK thebigcollector at msn.com wrote: Hello Bob (and list), Bob noted: ..I made another WP find on 2004 March 07.. Congratulations on another find Bob. Bob asked, When was this find made? I was not sure last morning when I made that web page. Since then I have talked with the finder, his wife and his brother, who was in town at the time of the find, in order to try to get a good date. It was found in the fall of 2001. The brother thought October, but I was not able to confirm the month. Bob continued: ...If the ~72 gram stone was found prior to that date, it is WP 003, if found after that date, it will be WP 004 (again, assuming there are no other Willcox Playa finds awaiting classification). Would I be correct in thinking it is Dr. Jones who assigns the U.S. number names? As you know Bob (which means I am typing this for the rest of the group), In a normal United States findor I guess I should say, in normal meteorite finds not from high collection areas, whoever owns the meteorite will usually submit it for a name, providing a couple appropriate names. These names are then voted on by the Met.Soc.Board. I remember you mentioned in an article a couple months ago (?) that any U.S. meteorite could get a provisional name whether classified or not, and you have implied that it is important for all meteorites to do such for chronological reasons. I wonder about such as I own a couple meteorites found by your team members without name/numbers, which would make personal cataloging easier. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick www.meteoritearticles.com -- [meteorite-list] Willcox Playa (Arizona) Meteorite Robert Verish bolidechaser at yahoo.com Fri Nov 19 12:28:10 EST 2004 Hi Mark, Congratulations on your latest acquisition. But, I have a question: When was this find made? It depends on this date of find whether the ~72gram stone is WP 003 or WP 004 assuming there are no other Willcox Playa finds awaiting classification. For instance, I made another WP find on 2004 March 07 so, if the ~72 gram stone was found prior to that date, it is WP 003, if found after that date, it will be WP 004 (again, assuming there are no other Willcox Playa finds awaiting classification). I had planned to write about my find in my February 2005 Bob's Findings article prior to the Tucson Show. That article would have
[meteorite-list] 61 meteorites for sale
Hi all, I have gone through my collection and have come up with 61 different meteorites to sell. There is everything from common Ls and Hs to all types of achondrites to SNCs. There are a few that I don't ever remember seeing for sale. There are too many to list here, but if you want a Word file with all the info, let me know. There are prices for all budgets. David Hardy = Here is the price of freedom, your every drop of courage, ounce of pain, pint of blood. Paid in advance. __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
Well, easy enough, I don't have any NWA 1110, never did so that answers that. You hit on trust. Trust is the way every meteorite in history has been sold until the dawn of NWA naming rules. Once again, every L'Aigle, every Gao, every Holbrook and Canyon Diablo. Burkina Faso has a new fall Lampiayrie, so add that to Gao, Guenie, Bilanga and to have a high collection area where pairings rules are not conducted or required. Trust is the very thing I am talking about. I strongly suspect that no non-NWA meteorite in your collection has been tested, if so the ratio is way down. Do things fall through the cracks, yes. Calcalong Creek is the paramount example, had Bob Haag had a bad day and just weighed and bagged it as Millbillillie then it likely would have been lost. But, by and large, the system ain't broke so why fix it. Buy from people you trust, like centuries of collectors in the past. I have sold to you more than once, I hope you trust me. I have nothing to hide. I merely offer that this recent chest beating is marketing disguised as science, and the scientist just confirmed it in saying that visual pairings are worthless and of little scientific importance. NWA 1110 was visually paired, A+B=C, so trust who you will, you still just bought a piece of paper if you bought NWA 1110. I am following the NomCom rules, I am doing what is asked. That does not mean I endorse it. I am 100% in favor of the scientific advancement in various fields that type specimens provide...but this is not science, it's marketing. Trust Point in fact, the only questionable material in my inventory came from the Hupes in the names NWA 1929, NWA 1906, NWA 801, NWA 978, and possibly NWA 1836, a claim which I can support with documents sitting right here on my desk and must now sort out at their own litigious request. So trust who you will. Furthermore, with the publishing of the who's naughty and who's nice lists is a customer what bought a large amount of classified NWA 3118 from my by way of the Hupes and is intended for resale. Adam posts to the list the people you can trust and because I don't report every sale I make to him this buyer is not mentioned as trustworthy. He is new to the business and is flooded with people he has now sold to asking if his 3118 is legit. He panics a bit, checks with me and I confirm it is HUPE OFFICIAL material. He then sends a letter to Adam asking to be included in this stupid game of Hupe sanctioned sellers and receives no reply. So he's still being questioned. Oh yeah, this is great for the hobby, a new seller's business is hurt and everyone is doubting his material that was all delivered from high upon Mt. Hupe in the first place. So Bernhard, I know you to be a man of intellect, please do not buy into this grandstanding. Mike Farmer pointed out the simple truth (and this is not a direct quote)...we all did this, now we do it as requested by the NomCom (flawed as it admittedly is as outlined by Dr. Grossman) or we spiral further into this Gestapo climate we are already in. Trust who you will Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Rob Wesel' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:43 PM Subject: AW: [meteorite-list] Thanks for the honest answer Dr. Grossman Rob, what I will write isn't from a scientific point of view. I am no scientist. I am a collector. So what I will write is from a collector's point of view. With no meteorite I have ever bought on ebay or elsewhere, I got proof that what was sold to me was actually what it was advertised to be. It's hard to proof it, even the so called certificates of authenticy are nothing more than paper, since there is only one person in the world who can guarantee that the meteorite is what he is said to be: the original holder of the classified material. So, when there is no proof - the only thing that remains is trust. I have to trust the seller that he sells me what he tells me. If this trust is shaken by something, I will stay away from him in the future. There are two easy questions I want to ask you: 1) How can you PROOF you sell NWA 1110 when you sell NWA 1110? Just tell me what proofs for YOU that you are selling NWA 1110. 2) How can you be sure that the material you are selling is martian? Just tell me what proofs for YOU that you are selling a martian meteorite with NWA 1110. Answer them in a way that makes me trust in you. I assume that when you bought that material, you asked the seller the same questions, right? Bernhard __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Chemical and Petrological Characterization of meteorites and other rocks
Dear List, As someone who has done chemical and petrological research, there are several problems involved. My research has only dealt with cherts and glasses. Both cherts and glasses are generally considered to be homogeneous in geology. In fact, they are and they are not. In chemically characterizing a meteorite (which are typically considered hetrogeneous), chert, glass and other rocks there are inherent problems presented to the researcher. The results of his/her research may be influenced by the sample size, sampling method and the method of analyis. I have done both bulk chemical analysis (ICP) and spot sampling (ASEM and KEVEX). Both can and often do produce slightly different results. Sometimes the results can be very different due to the researcher, techniques, standards and sample population. Also once the data is obtained, the data has to be interpreted. Often a data set contains equipment error and is skewed or contains noise from a high peak response. Many times the scientist must be an artist rather than a strict scientist. Most in science understand the inherent problems and in the real world have to accept them. Science is a search for fact, not truth. So the next time you read a description keep in mind that all analysis is done by humans and machines with several types of error. Some researchers state only the minimum of their intrepretations and others use terms such as remarkable, unique, common, etc. These qualatative subjective terms are subject to each individual researcher and another researcher may not choose to use such terminology or in fact it may or not be a personal bias that the specific researcher has introduced. That is all I have to say. Any comments? Cheers, Dirk Ross..Tokyo __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
Rob, What are you talking about. A type specimen for NWA 1110 was submitted to and studied by the University of Washington. Thin sections were cut, pieces were analyzed with a microprobe, specimens were sent out for Isotope work and dating. NWA 1110 is a well studied set of stones. Every fragment was cleaned and then looked at by Dr. Irving. Dr. Irving rejected several of the pebbles that were submitted as being terrestrial otherwise nobody would have known the difference. The NomCom then voted on this group of gravel and made it official. Dr Irving not only works in a laboratory he is one of the few scientist who has actually gone on a Team LunarRock expedition to Morocco. He knows what is going on in and is work is of the highest standard. Think about what you are saying, Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:58 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Well, easy enough, I don't have any NWA 1110, never did so that answers that. You hit on trust. Trust is the way every meteorite in history has been sold until the dawn of NWA naming rules. Once again, every L'Aigle, every Gao, every Holbrook and Canyon Diablo. Burkina Faso has a new fall Lampiayrie, so add that to Gao, Guenie, Bilanga and to have a high collection area where pairings rules are not conducted or required. Trust is the very thing I am talking about. I strongly suspect that no non-NWA meteorite in your collection has been tested, if so the ratio is way down. Do things fall through the cracks, yes. Calcalong Creek is the paramount example, had Bob Haag had a bad day and just weighed and bagged it as Millbillillie then it likely would have been lost. But, by and large, the system ain't broke so why fix it. Buy from people you trust, like centuries of collectors in the past. I have sold to you more than once, I hope you trust me. I have nothing to hide. I merely offer that this recent chest beating is marketing disguised as science, and the scientist just confirmed it in saying that visual pairings are worthless and of little scientific importance. NWA 1110 was visually paired, A+B=C, so trust who you will, you still just bought a piece of paper if you bought NWA 1110. I am following the NomCom rules, I am doing what is asked. That does not mean I endorse it. I am 100% in favor of the scientific advancement in various fields that type specimens provide...but this is not science, it's marketing. Trust Point in fact, the only questionable material in my inventory came from the Hupes in the names NWA 1929, NWA 1906, NWA 801, NWA 978, and possibly NWA 1836, a claim which I can support with documents sitting right here on my desk and must now sort out at their own litigious request. So trust who you will. Furthermore, with the publishing of the who's naughty and who's nice lists is a customer what bought a large amount of classified NWA 3118 from my by way of the Hupes and is intended for resale. Adam posts to the list the people you can trust and because I don't report every sale I make to him this buyer is not mentioned as trustworthy. He is new to the business and is flooded with people he has now sold to asking if his 3118 is legit. He panics a bit, checks with me and I confirm it is HUPE OFFICIAL material. He then sends a letter to Adam asking to be included in this stupid game of Hupe sanctioned sellers and receives no reply. So he's still being questioned. Oh yeah, this is great for the hobby, a new seller's business is hurt and everyone is doubting his material that was all delivered from high upon Mt. Hupe in the first place. So Bernhard, I know you to be a man of intellect, please do not buy into this grandstanding. Mike Farmer pointed out the simple truth (and this is not a direct quote)...we all did this, now we do it as requested by the NomCom (flawed as it admittedly is as outlined by Dr. Grossman) or we spiral further into this Gestapo climate we are already in. Trust who you will Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Rob Wesel' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:43 PM Subject: AW: [meteorite-list] Thanks for the honest answer Dr. Grossman Rob, what I will write isn't from a scientific point of view. I am no scientist. I am a collector. So what I will write is from a collector's point of view. With no meteorite I have ever bought on ebay or elsewhere, I got proof that what was sold to me was actually what it was advertised to be. It's hard to proof it, even the so called certificates of authenticy are nothing more than paper, since there is only one person in the world who can guarantee that the
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
Looked at or microprobed? Bernhard asked, I answered, please see Dr. Grossman's evaluation of looked at Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Rob, What are you talking about. A type specimen for NWA 1110 was submitted to and studied by the University of Washington. Thin sections were cut, pieces were analyzed with a microprobe, specimens were sent out for Isotope work and dating. NWA 1110 is a well studied set of stones. Every fragment was cleaned and then looked at by Dr. Irving. Dr. Irving rejected several of the pebbles that were submitted as being terrestrial otherwise nobody would have known the difference. The NomCom then voted on this group of gravel and made it official. Dr Irving not only works in a laboratory he is one of the few scientist who has actually gone on a Team LunarRock expedition to Morocco. He knows what is going on in and is work is of the highest standard. Think about what you are saying, Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:58 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Well, easy enough, I don't have any NWA 1110, never did so that answers that. You hit on trust. Trust is the way every meteorite in history has been sold until the dawn of NWA naming rules. Once again, every L'Aigle, every Gao, every Holbrook and Canyon Diablo. Burkina Faso has a new fall Lampiayrie, so add that to Gao, Guenie, Bilanga and to have a high collection area where pairings rules are not conducted or required. Trust is the very thing I am talking about. I strongly suspect that no non-NWA meteorite in your collection has been tested, if so the ratio is way down. Do things fall through the cracks, yes. Calcalong Creek is the paramount example, had Bob Haag had a bad day and just weighed and bagged it as Millbillillie then it likely would have been lost. But, by and large, the system ain't broke so why fix it. Buy from people you trust, like centuries of collectors in the past. I have sold to you more than once, I hope you trust me. I have nothing to hide. I merely offer that this recent chest beating is marketing disguised as science, and the scientist just confirmed it in saying that visual pairings are worthless and of little scientific importance. NWA 1110 was visually paired, A+B=C, so trust who you will, you still just bought a piece of paper if you bought NWA 1110. I am following the NomCom rules, I am doing what is asked. That does not mean I endorse it. I am 100% in favor of the scientific advancement in various fields that type specimens provide...but this is not science, it's marketing. Trust Point in fact, the only questionable material in my inventory came from the Hupes in the names NWA 1929, NWA 1906, NWA 801, NWA 978, and possibly NWA 1836, a claim which I can support with documents sitting right here on my desk and must now sort out at their own litigious request. So trust who you will. Furthermore, with the publishing of the who's naughty and who's nice lists is a customer what bought a large amount of classified NWA 3118 from my by way of the Hupes and is intended for resale. Adam posts to the list the people you can trust and because I don't report every sale I make to him this buyer is not mentioned as trustworthy. He is new to the business and is flooded with people he has now sold to asking if his 3118 is legit. He panics a bit, checks with me and I confirm it is HUPE OFFICIAL material. He then sends a letter to Adam asking to be included in this stupid game of Hupe sanctioned sellers and receives no reply. So he's still being questioned. Oh yeah, this is great for the hobby, a new seller's business is hurt and everyone is doubting his material that was all delivered from high upon Mt. Hupe in the first place. So Bernhard, I know you to be a man of intellect, please do not buy into this grandstanding. Mike Farmer pointed out the simple truth (and this is not a direct quote)...we all did this, now we do it as requested by the NomCom (flawed as it admittedly is as outlined by Dr. Grossman) or we spiral further into this Gestapo climate we are already in. Trust who you will Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Rob Wesel' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:43 PM Subject: AW: [meteorite-list] Thanks for the honest answer Dr. Grossman Rob, what I will write isn't from a scientific point of view. I am no scientist. I am a collector. So what I will
[meteorite-list] solution to the number game
Bob, If you want to sell your rocks as nwa 1110 - why not just include a notice in your ebay description specifically and unequivically stating that the material you are offering was not part of the nwa 1110 find that was recoverd - however your source for the material has sold it to you as nwa 1110 and your personal expertise in the field of meteoritics leads you to belive that the material is in fact the same meteorite as nwa 1110. that way there is proper disclosure. no one can say you are advetising something incorectly. to use this very specific example Adam doesnt have to worry about colelctors out there thinking they have a piece of nwa 1110 when they infact dont. and the customer can make an informed decision. I do not see how it would hurt your sales any because in the end they are all based upon the market confidence in the source anyway. Infact you could even market it as a benifit for your customers as you didnt have to go through the expense of submitting material for classification - HOWEVER they will simply have to trust your judgemt in identifying that this tiny fragment of rock really is a picritic shergotite and not a pebble that fell off of a cliff in washington state a few years ago. Meteorite numbers are much like slabbed coins. A pcgs ms65 high relief double eagle wil lsell for fair market value sight unseen. An unslabed ms-65 high relief from joe collector would not relize anywhere nearly as much, just like most collectors wouldnt spend 200$ a gram for a martian metoeirte that was simply a stone someone found on the side of the road and decided to declare as comming from mars. However when you present your customer with good, solid information as to the legitimacy of your claims in offering that gem of a coin you will see that the realized price will start to aproach that of what one might get if it were slabed. Same thing with meteorites. comments anyone? From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Comcast Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:08:54 -0800 Bob, It is very simple, send a type specimen to NAU or any other NomCom authorized laboratory and I will recognize your material when the NomCom assigns it an official NWA number. Using the numbers NWA 1110 and NWA 1877 will never be acceptable because the material has already been voted on. It is a simple matter, send in a type specimen and all the fragments. The fragments will be visually compared to the type specimen by a competent scientist. If a qualified scientist argues to the NomCom they are all the same and the NomCom votes that this is ok they will all be assigned an official number. Every fragment in the NWA 1110 batch was looked at by Dr. Irving, submitted to the NomCom and a number was assigned to cover the 118 grams of fragments, not a gram more. I am not authorized to compare material and make official judgements and neither is Mike. All we can do is offer an opinion. In the case of a fall the NomCom rules are different. Here is link to explain how you can make your unclassified and un-numbered material official: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~glg100-p/Meteorite.html If you are too lazy to follow through that will become your problem. There is no excuse for number piggy-backing and it is against NomCom rules. If you do not respect them you have no right to call your material anything other than unclassified. Growing ever more tired of repeating myself to someone who can not grasp the simplest concepts, Adam - Original Message - From: Comcast Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Well, What do you say Adam? Shall we send Mike our NWA1877 and NWA1110 Put up ... or shut up Bob Evans - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Comcast Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Bob, I would be glad to, and I think that specific meteorite is a great example of the problem we are facing. The Shergottite in question was widely distributed in Morocco, and many people got pieces of it. I sold under the name NWA 1068. I am not sure how to approach this one, it is unfair for people to demand that every fragment of it be classified, as it would be a waste of time and material. However, what is the solution? I really don't know. Mike - Original Message - From: Comcast Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Mike, Ive sold samples to people who bought samples from both Adam and I. They say that they are identical ( kind
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
Microprobed, read the abstract: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nwa1110.html How else can you get ratios to support a Martian origin? Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Looked at or microprobed? Bernhard asked, I answered, please see Dr. Grossman's evaluation of looked at Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Rob, What are you talking about. A type specimen for NWA 1110 was submitted to and studied by the University of Washington. Thin sections were cut, pieces were analyzed with a microprobe, specimens were sent out for Isotope work and dating. NWA 1110 is a well studied set of stones. Every fragment was cleaned and then looked at by Dr. Irving. Dr. Irving rejected several of the pebbles that were submitted as being terrestrial otherwise nobody would have known the difference. The NomCom then voted on this group of gravel and made it official. Dr Irving not only works in a laboratory he is one of the few scientist who has actually gone on a Team LunarRock expedition to Morocco. He knows what is going on in and is work is of the highest standard. Think about what you are saying, Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:58 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Well, easy enough, I don't have any NWA 1110, never did so that answers that. You hit on trust. Trust is the way every meteorite in history has been sold until the dawn of NWA naming rules. Once again, every L'Aigle, every Gao, every Holbrook and Canyon Diablo. Burkina Faso has a new fall Lampiayrie, so add that to Gao, Guenie, Bilanga and to have a high collection area where pairings rules are not conducted or required. Trust is the very thing I am talking about. I strongly suspect that no non-NWA meteorite in your collection has been tested, if so the ratio is way down. Do things fall through the cracks, yes. Calcalong Creek is the paramount example, had Bob Haag had a bad day and just weighed and bagged it as Millbillillie then it likely would have been lost. But, by and large, the system ain't broke so why fix it. Buy from people you trust, like centuries of collectors in the past. I have sold to you more than once, I hope you trust me. I have nothing to hide. I merely offer that this recent chest beating is marketing disguised as science, and the scientist just confirmed it in saying that visual pairings are worthless and of little scientific importance. NWA 1110 was visually paired, A+B=C, so trust who you will, you still just bought a piece of paper if you bought NWA 1110. I am following the NomCom rules, I am doing what is asked. That does not mean I endorse it. I am 100% in favor of the scientific advancement in various fields that type specimens provide...but this is not science, it's marketing. Trust Point in fact, the only questionable material in my inventory came from the Hupes in the names NWA 1929, NWA 1906, NWA 801, NWA 978, and possibly NWA 1836, a claim which I can support with documents sitting right here on my desk and must now sort out at their own litigious request. So trust who you will. Furthermore, with the publishing of the who's naughty and who's nice lists is a customer what bought a large amount of classified NWA 3118 from my by way of the Hupes and is intended for resale. Adam posts to the list the people you can trust and because I don't report every sale I make to him this buyer is not mentioned as trustworthy. He is new to the business and is flooded with people he has now sold to asking if his 3118 is legit. He panics a bit, checks with me and I confirm it is HUPE OFFICIAL material. He then sends a letter to Adam asking to be included in this stupid game of Hupe sanctioned sellers and receives no reply. So he's still being questioned. Oh yeah, this is great for the hobby, a new seller's business is hurt and everyone is doubting his material that was all delivered from high upon Mt. Hupe in the first place. So Bernhard, I know you to be a man of intellect, please do not buy into this grandstanding. Mike Farmer pointed out the simple truth (and this is not a direct quote)...we all did this, now we do it as requested by the NomCom (flawed as it admittedly is as outlined
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
Well then I owe you an apology, if EVERY piece was microprobed then this falls above and beyond the NomCom rules and at immense expense to you. Thank you for clearing that matter up, I must have misunderstood the part where you stated Every fragment was cleaned and then looked at by Dr. Irving. as being literally looked at and not probed. I am familiar with the abstract but it doesn't specify that every piece was microprobed. Again I am very sorry. Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Microprobed, read the abstract: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nwa1110.html How else can you get ratios to support a Martian origin? Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Looked at or microprobed? Bernhard asked, I answered, please see Dr. Grossman's evaluation of looked at Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Rob, What are you talking about. A type specimen for NWA 1110 was submitted to and studied by the University of Washington. Thin sections were cut, pieces were analyzed with a microprobe, specimens were sent out for Isotope work and dating. NWA 1110 is a well studied set of stones. Every fragment was cleaned and then looked at by Dr. Irving. Dr. Irving rejected several of the pebbles that were submitted as being terrestrial otherwise nobody would have known the difference. The NomCom then voted on this group of gravel and made it official. Dr Irving not only works in a laboratory he is one of the few scientist who has actually gone on a Team LunarRock expedition to Morocco. He knows what is going on in and is work is of the highest standard. Think about what you are saying, Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:58 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Well, easy enough, I don't have any NWA 1110, never did so that answers that. You hit on trust. Trust is the way every meteorite in history has been sold until the dawn of NWA naming rules. Once again, every L'Aigle, every Gao, every Holbrook and Canyon Diablo. Burkina Faso has a new fall Lampiayrie, so add that to Gao, Guenie, Bilanga and to have a high collection area where pairings rules are not conducted or required. Trust is the very thing I am talking about. I strongly suspect that no non-NWA meteorite in your collection has been tested, if so the ratio is way down. Do things fall through the cracks, yes. Calcalong Creek is the paramount example, had Bob Haag had a bad day and just weighed and bagged it as Millbillillie then it likely would have been lost. But, by and large, the system ain't broke so why fix it. Buy from people you trust, like centuries of collectors in the past. I have sold to you more than once, I hope you trust me. I have nothing to hide. I merely offer that this recent chest beating is marketing disguised as science, and the scientist just confirmed it in saying that visual pairings are worthless and of little scientific importance. NWA 1110 was visually paired, A+B=C, so trust who you will, you still just bought a piece of paper if you bought NWA 1110. I am following the NomCom rules, I am doing what is asked. That does not mean I endorse it. I am 100% in favor of the scientific advancement in various fields that type specimens provide...but this is not science, it's marketing. Trust Point in fact, the only questionable material in my inventory came from the Hupes in the names NWA 1929, NWA 1906, NWA 801, NWA 978, and possibly NWA 1836, a claim which I can support with documents sitting right here on my desk and must now sort out at their own litigious request. So trust who you will. Furthermore, with the publishing of the who's naughty and who's nice lists is a customer what bought a large amount of classified NWA 3118 from my by way of the Hupes and is intended for resale. Adam posts to the list the people you can trust and because I don't report every sale I make to him this buyer is not mentioned as trustworthy. He is new to the business and is flooded with people he has now sold to asking if his 3118 is
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
AdamI think you meant your pieces were looked at by Dr. Irving as this is what you have told the list repeatedly. You could not possibly have had every piece microprobed as all the pieces we have seen sold by you on ebay did not even have a window polished into them. Further, no one in their right mind would microprobe each and every little piece of shergottite that you bought in Morocco. I think we can all move on from this NWA 1110 thread as it is getting rather old. We have NWA 2373 which has been provisionally classified as being paired with NWA 1068, so if anyone is still interested in purchasing a classified shergottite that has been properly tested and for which a type specimen has been submitted, please feel free. Thanks all! -John Dawn Arizona Skies Meteorites Adam Hupe wrote: Microprobed, read the abstract: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nwa1110.html How else can you get ratios to support a Martian origin? Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Looked at or microprobed? Bernhard asked, I answered, please see Dr. Grossman's evaluation of looked at Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Rob, What are you talking about. A type specimen for NWA 1110 was submitted to and studied by the University of Washington. Thin sections were cut, pieces were analyzed with a microprobe, specimens were sent out for Isotope work and dating. NWA 1110 is a well studied set of stones. Every fragment was cleaned and then looked at by Dr. Irving. Dr. Irving rejected several of the pebbles that were submitted as being terrestrial otherwise nobody would have known the difference. The NomCom then voted on this group of gravel and made it official. Dr Irving not only works in a laboratory he is one of the few scientist who has actually gone on a Team LunarRock expedition to Morocco. He knows what is going on in and is work is of the highest standard. Think about what you are saying, Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:58 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Well, easy enough, I don't have any NWA 1110, never did so that answers that. You hit on trust. Trust is the way every meteorite in history has been sold until the dawn of NWA naming rules. Once again, every L'Aigle, every Gao, every Holbrook and Canyon Diablo. Burkina Faso has a new fall Lampiayrie, so add that to Gao, Guenie, Bilanga and to have a high collection area where pairings rules are not conducted or required. Trust is the very thing I am talking about. I strongly suspect that no non-NWA meteorite in your collection has been tested, if so the ratio is way down. Do things fall through the cracks, yes. Calcalong Creek is the paramount example, had Bob Haag had a bad day and just weighed and bagged it as Millbillillie then it likely would have been lost. But, by and large, the system ain't broke so why fix it. Buy from people you trust, like centuries of collectors in the past. I have sold to you more than once, I hope you trust me. I have nothing to hide. I merely offer that this recent chest beating is marketing disguised as science, and the scientist just confirmed it in saying that visual pairings are worthless and of little scientific importance. NWA 1110 was visually paired, A+B=C, so trust who you will, you still just bought a piece of paper if you bought NWA 1110. I am following the NomCom rules, I am doing what is asked. That does not mean I endorse it. I am 100% in favor of the scientific advancement in various fields that type specimens provide...but this is not science, it's marketing. Trust Point in fact, the only questionable material in my inventory came from the Hupes in the names NWA 1929, NWA 1906, NWA 801, NWA 978, and possibly NWA 1836, a claim which I can support with documents sitting right here on my desk and must now sort out at their own litigious request. So trust who you will. Furthermore, with the publishing of the who's naughty and who's nice lists is a customer what bought a large amount of classified NWA 3118 from my by way of the Hupes and is
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
Why is there an argument in regards to material that has been NomCom approved? The problem is pseudo-dealers thinking they know more than scientists. If we start questioning scientist, who have been very patient thus far with the collecting community, where will this leave us? Think about it, Adam - Original Message - From: John Birdsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... AdamI think you meant your pieces were looked at by Dr. Irving as this is what you have told the list repeatedly. You could not possibly have had every piece microprobed as all the pieces we have seen sold by you on ebay did not even have a window polished into them. Further, no one in their right mind would microprobe each and every little piece of shergottite that you bought in Morocco. I think we can all move on from this NWA 1110 thread as it is getting rather old. We have NWA 2373 which has been provisionally classified as being paired with NWA 1068, so if anyone is still interested in purchasing a classified shergottite that has been properly tested and for which a type specimen has been submitted, please feel free. Thanks all! -John Dawn Arizona Skies Meteorites Adam Hupe wrote: Microprobed, read the abstract: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nwa1110.html How else can you get ratios to support a Martian origin? Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Looked at or microprobed? Bernhard asked, I answered, please see Dr. Grossman's evaluation of looked at Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Rob, What are you talking about. A type specimen for NWA 1110 was submitted to and studied by the University of Washington. Thin sections were cut, pieces were analyzed with a microprobe, specimens were sent out for Isotope work and dating. NWA 1110 is a well studied set of stones. Every fragment was cleaned and then looked at by Dr. Irving. Dr. Irving rejected several of the pebbles that were submitted as being terrestrial otherwise nobody would have known the difference. The NomCom then voted on this group of gravel and made it official. Dr Irving not only works in a laboratory he is one of the few scientist who has actually gone on a Team LunarRock expedition to Morocco. He knows what is going on in and is work is of the highest standard. Think about what you are saying, Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:58 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Well, easy enough, I don't have any NWA 1110, never did so that answers that. You hit on trust. Trust is the way every meteorite in history has been sold until the dawn of NWA naming rules. Once again, every L'Aigle, every Gao, every Holbrook and Canyon Diablo. Burkina Faso has a new fall Lampiayrie, so add that to Gao, Guenie, Bilanga and to have a high collection area where pairings rules are not conducted or required. Trust is the very thing I am talking about. I strongly suspect that no non-NWA meteorite in your collection has been tested, if so the ratio is way down. Do things fall through the cracks, yes. Calcalong Creek is the paramount example, had Bob Haag had a bad day and just weighed and bagged it as Millbillillie then it likely would have been lost. But, by and large, the system ain't broke so why fix it. Buy from people you trust, like centuries of collectors in the past. I have sold to you more than once, I hope you trust me. I have nothing to hide. I merely offer that this recent chest beating is marketing disguised as science, and the scientist just confirmed it in saying that visual pairings are worthless and of little scientific importance. NWA 1110 was visually paired, A+B=C, so trust who you will, you still just bought a piece of paper if you bought NWA 1110. I am following the NomCom rules, I am doing what is asked. That does not mean I endorse it. I am 100% in favor of the scientific advancement in various fields that type specimens provide...but this
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
Adam...I don't think there is any argument. We simple pointed out that you mis-spoke when you told Rob that every one of your shergottite pieces had been micro-probed. I the interests of the collectors I think that honesty is the best policy, and I'm sure that you agree. Cheers -John Dawn Arizona Skies Meteorites Adam Hupe wrote: Why is there an argument in regards to material that has been NomCom approved? The problem is pseudo-dealers thinking they know more than scientists. If we start questioning scientist, who have been very patient thus far with the collecting community, where will this leave us? Think about it, Adam - Original Message - From: John Birdsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... AdamI think you meant your pieces were looked at by Dr. Irving as this is what you have told the list repeatedly. You could not possibly have had every piece microprobed as all the pieces we have seen sold by you on ebay did not even have a window polished into them. Further, no one in their right mind would microprobe each and every little piece of shergottite that you bought in Morocco. I think we can all move on from this NWA 1110 thread as it is getting rather old. We have NWA 2373 which has been provisionally classified as being paired with NWA 1068, so if anyone is still interested in purchasing a classified shergottite that has been properly tested and for which a type specimen has been submitted, please feel free. Thanks all! -John Dawn Arizona Skies Meteorites Adam Hupe wrote: Microprobed, read the abstract: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nwa1110.html How else can you get ratios to support a Martian origin? Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Looked at or microprobed? Bernhard asked, I answered, please see Dr. Grossman's evaluation of looked at Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Rob, What are you talking about. A type specimen for NWA 1110 was submitted to and studied by the University of Washington. Thin sections were cut, pieces were analyzed with a microprobe, specimens were sent out for Isotope work and dating. NWA 1110 is a well studied set of stones. Every fragment was cleaned and then looked at by Dr. Irving. Dr. Irving rejected several of the pebbles that were submitted as being terrestrial otherwise nobody would have known the difference. The NomCom then voted on this group of gravel and made it official. Dr Irving not only works in a laboratory he is one of the few scientist who has actually gone on a Team LunarRock expedition to Morocco. He knows what is going on in and is work is of the highest standard. Think about what you are saying, Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:58 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer... Well, easy enough, I don't have any NWA 1110, never did so that answers that. You hit on trust. Trust is the way every meteorite in history has been sold until the dawn of NWA naming rules. Once again, every L'Aigle, every Gao, every Holbrook and Canyon Diablo. Burkina Faso has a new fall Lampiayrie, so add that to Gao, Guenie, Bilanga and to have a high collection area where pairings rules are not conducted or required. Trust is the very thing I am talking about. I strongly suspect that no non-NWA meteorite in your collection has been tested, if so the ratio is way down. Do things fall through the cracks, yes. Calcalong Creek is the paramount example, had Bob Haag had a bad day and just weighed and bagged it as Millbillillie then it likely would have been lost. But, by and large, the system ain't broke so why fix it. Buy from people you trust, like centuries of collectors in the past. I have sold to you more than once, I hope you trust me. I have nothing to hide. I merely offer that this recent
[meteorite-list] Re: solution to the number game
Stan wrote: - why not just include a notice in your ebay description specifically and unequivically stating that the material you are offering was not part of the nwa 1110 find that was recoverd - however your source for the material has sold it to you as nwa 1110 and your personal expertise in the field of meteoritics leads you to belive that the material is in fact the same meteorite as nwa 1110. Well, I believe ( I know this will not be the popular belief ) that whether a meteorite is a find or a fall and has a NWA # or locality name there really is no point in renaming specimens. If its the same meteorite . then its the same meteorite. I found over 300 Park Forest specimens ( individuals and fragments ) when it fell.If anyone wants to see pics, I have them. If I were the one to have supplied the initial sample for classification and then Adam comes along and buys or finds additional specimens, I certainly wouldnt tell him he has no right to call it Park Forest. Meteorite names and NWA #'s are not proprietary. Thats something that Adam has to come to grips with. I mean this is absolutely ridiculous. Look at SAU 001 . many people have recovered so many kilos of that stuff and nobody cares about using SAU 001. Adam apparenty feels that these guidlines only apply to more rare meteorites. I dont feel the same way. Why wouldnt everyone have to include a notice in an ebay auction as you stated above if they received specimens of any meteorite from the strewnfield after the initial find? Bob Evans - Original Message - From: stan . [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 7:03 PM Subject: solution to the number game Bob, If you want to sell your rocks as nwa 1110 - why not just include a notice in your ebay description specifically and unequivically stating that the material you are offering was not part of the nwa 1110 find that was recoverd - however your source for the material has sold it to you as nwa 1110 and your personal expertise in the field of meteoritics leads you to belive that the material is in fact the same meteorite as nwa 1110. that way there is proper disclosure. no one can say you are advetising something incorectly. to use this very specific example Adam doesnt have to worry about colelctors out there thinking they have a piece of nwa 1110 when they infact dont. and the customer can make an informed decision. I do not see how it would hurt your sales any because in the end they are all based upon the market confidence in the source anyway. Infact you could even market it as a benifit for your customers as you didnt have to go through the expense of submitting material for classification - HOWEVER they will simply have to trust your judgemt in identifying that this tiny fragment of rock really is a picritic shergotite and not a pebble that fell off of a cliff in washington state a few years ago. Meteorite numbers are much like slabbed coins. A pcgs ms65 high relief double eagle wil lsell for fair market value sight unseen. An unslabed ms-65 high relief from joe collector would not relize anywhere nearly as much, just like most collectors wouldnt spend 200$ a gram for a martian metoeirte that was simply a stone someone found on the side of the road and decided to declare as comming from mars. However when you present your customer with good, solid information as to the legitimacy of your claims in offering that gem of a coin you will see that the realized price will start to aproach that of what one might get if it were slabed. Same thing with meteorites. comments anyone? From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Comcast Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:08:54 -0800 Bob, It is very simple, send a type specimen to NAU or any other NomCom authorized laboratory and I will recognize your material when the NomCom assigns it an official NWA number. Using the numbers NWA 1110 and NWA 1877 will never be acceptable because the material has already been voted on. It is a simple matter, send in a type specimen and all the fragments. The fragments will be visually compared to the type specimen by a competent scientist. If a qualified scientist argues to the NomCom they are all the same and the NomCom votes that this is ok they will all be assigned an official number. Every fragment in the NWA 1110 batch was looked at by Dr. Irving, submitted to the NomCom and a number was assigned to cover the 118 grams of fragments, not a gram more. I am not authorized to compare material and make official judgements and neither is Mike. All we can do is offer an opinion. In the case of a fall the NomCom rules are different. Here is link to explain how you can make your unclassified and un-numbered material official: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~glg100-p/Meteorite.html If you
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
Dear list and Adam, What is a dealer and what is a pseudo-dealer? Is it possible that the key is marketing skills? Trust is the real answer to this ugly problem and this market is rapidly losing trust due to the marketing skills of some. Please keep science and scientist out of marketing. Sincerely, Dirk Ross...Tokyo __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
In a message dated 11/21/2004 6:53:39 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear list and Adam, What is a dealer and what is a pseudo-dealer? Is it possible that the key is marketing skills? Trust is the real answer to this ugly problem and this market is rapidly losing trust due to the marketing skills of some. Please keep science and scientist out of marketing. Sincerely, Dirk Ross...Tokyo -- --- Yes, Trust is the key. And that is why the IMCA was created.. but of course I am partial. ;-) Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMCA #2356, www.IMCA.cc __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] The Next Generation
Dear List, The next generation of collectors will probably be more demanding about authenticity because the amount of material on the market will be much less. If a dealer is not even willing to put his name on an ID card what does this say? Meteorites are considered to be at the top of the heap as far as most natural history items go. There are very few natural history items that can come close to the rarity of meteorites. At one time, some academics thought meteorites were so important that the public should not be able to own one. To see them squandered by this generation due to poor management and less than acceptable documentation will be felt and remembered into the future. Maybe these problems can be corrected and the current generation will have learned by these mistakes, myself included. Maybe most will realize that meteorites are not mere commodities and are not renewable resources. Just maybe, this very small niche can evolve to the next level and this generation can be remembered as one that did something about it. All the best, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Trust - Forward from Dirk ross
Forwarded with permission Dear Rob, Please post it. A and B were given only as examples. You MAY post the message to the list. Please note that in the posting that my statement A and B do not apply to any specific party involved in this catfight. In fact, as stated, this is only a senerio of example. Cheers, Dirk Dear Rob, Thank you for the post. Hammer hits nail on the head? Another senerio, dealer A sells excess same? material that will devalue his classified monopoly of limited grams of TKW to dealer B and dealer B chooses to call it the same? or as dealer A demands, has to send it for classification to get the same classification but with a new number. Meanwhile customer A buys and resells his material that he has bought from dealer Aand the beat goes on. This all stems from marketing; and becomes a headache for researchers. The end result will be that dealer A finds out that he has shot himself in the foot and general trust becomes a problem. Sincerely, Dirk...Tokyo Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Was...Honest Answer...
I see that everybody has yet again found a way to make asses of themselves in their efforts to push personal agendas. As far as who owns the numbers, I dont know about europe but in The United States and canada legally nobody owns them so stop this stupididy about threatening lawsuits. Remember the 286, 386, 486 computer chips? Intel patented those numbers and couldent stop anybody else in court from using the numbers. So the Pentium came into being. If Intel cant keep a number that they legally patented spending more in legal fees than has been spent on meteorites in the past few decades dont go saying you can sue somebody for using your numbers. In Canada and the USA you cant own a number (Or a colour) and it cannot be patented. The arguement might be right and ethical but it wont hold up in court. Not to say that dealers complaining about other dealers using their numbers are wrong. If NWAxxx is officially a 362 gram stone I dont see how it would be right to sell another stone as that number. Get another number and call it paired with NWAxxx. Look in the meteoritical bulletin and there is a very defined weight that applies to a certain NWA number. The NWA number only applies to that one stone and everybody knows that they are almost all paired with something else. Look at all the numbers that the CR2, CV3 and R4 in morocco has (Have anybody ever wondered why Libyas Dar al Gani desert attracts so many CO3s?). While the arguement is valid it seems to me that so many numbers for such obviously paired meteorites is sort of convuluted. I dont have an answer that would help matters so I wont talk about this more here. However, on a side note remember Gold Basin? There are I believe six meteorites found in the same strewnfield and there is an arguement that the 6 are all from the same fall and that it is brecciated. This is not officially accepted but it just gives an example of the difficulty in getting information on a meteorite. Also What is a dealer. A dealer is somebody who sells something. Throw 50 meteorites on ebay and you are a dealer. Stick up a stall with 20 TV's for sale and you are a TV dealer. Dont believe me? Ask the tax department if somebody who sells 50 meteorites a month should pay taxes on the sales? Sell 50 meteorites a month on ebay and you would have a very hard time explaining to the tax people that you are not running a business and shouldent pay taxes on it. As far as the conflicting classifications goes? One only has to look at NWA869 and NWA1109 to see the extent of the whole mess. NWA869 has 3 or 4 different classifications and they are all proper classifications. NWA1109 is a polymict eucrite but there are lots of howardites paired with the eucrite and done by respectible labs using proper procedures. Find a 65 gram inclusion of mixed diamonds, olivine and diogenite material in NWA1109 and an unscrupulous dealer could send 20 grams to a respectable lab and get a RARE olivine diogenite ureilite classification that would get officially accepted and printed in the met bulletin and offer it at hundreds of dollars a gram instead of the $15 or so that NWA1109 sells for. The real problem is that is it so difficult (Or impossible) to get something classified. Dealers would get things classified if they could do so. But remember that dealers are looking for a profit and 2 years out waiting to sell something just plain wont work and is not going to happen. So, like any other type of business, meteorite dealers take short cuts and make the best of the situation available to them. I have meteorites that I have been waiting 3 years on for classifications and I usually never bother anymore. The rare classifications all come out at the same time anyway and most meteorite buyers are knowledgable enough to know what they are buying. Maybe the meteoritical society can come up with a lower standard so that classifications can get done easier or maybe some new invention will help out to streamline the process. Just an idea. I dont know what will work. But a productive approach and intelligent discussion to the problem (Rather than threatening lawsuits) might actually get some lab guys involved that might add some insight and ideas that might help the classification backlog situation - which is the real problem here. Just my two cents worth DEAN --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/21/2004 6:53:39 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear list and Adam, What is a dealer and what is a pseudo-dealer? Is it possible that the key is marketing skills? Trust is the real answer to this ugly problem and this market is rapidly losing trust due to the marketing skills of some. Please keep science and scientist out of marketing. Sincerely, Dirk Ross...Tokyo -- --- Yes, Trust is the key. And that is why the IMCA was created.. but of course I am
Re: [meteorite-list] Trust - Forward from Dirk ross
NWA numbers do not belong to any person, they belong to a set of samples. Nobody is trying to claim ownership of numbers just the material classified under those numbers unless material is released to a third party. Think of NWA numbers as serial numbers. Two meteorites may have came from the same location and classify the same but will have unique numbers. For somebody to use unique numbers assigned to somebody else's material is fraudulent and damaging in some cases. If you made up your own VIN number so that it matched a famous person's vehicle this would be cause for concern, same with meteorites. Borrowing that VIN number does not make it the same car. Lets say that dealer A does the right thing and has his material classified. Then lets say dealer B who received his material in the mail from a Moroccan borrows dealer A's descriptions and nomenclature without being supplied by dealer A. Say the false nomenclature has a detrimental affect on Dealer A's inventory value. Does not dealer A have the right to pursue damages for the devaluation of property because of the fraud committed by dealer B and the use of dealer As copyrighted promotional material without permission. Hope this clears up an issue, Adam - Original Message - From: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 7:09 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Trust - Forward from Dirk ross Forwarded with permission Dear Rob, Please post it. A and B were given only as examples. You MAY post the message to the list. Please note that in the posting that my statement A and B do not apply to any specific party involved in this catfight. In fact, as stated, this is only a senerio of example. Cheers, Dirk Dear Rob, Thank you for the post. Hammer hits nail on the head? Another senerio, dealer A sells excess same? material that will devalue his classified monopoly of limited grams of TKW to dealer B and dealer B chooses to call it the same? or as dealer A demands, has to send it for classification to get the same classification but with a new number. Meanwhile customer A buys and resells his material that he has bought from dealer Aand the beat goes on. This all stems from marketing; and becomes a headache for researchers. The end result will be that dealer A finds out that he has shot himself in the foot and general trust becomes a problem. Sincerely, Dirk...Tokyo Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 __ 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
[meteorite-list] AD - NWA 3125
Hello All, I now have NWA 3125 back on sale on my website for a paltry $125.00. It's a nice 40.25g Slice and it comes mounted in a Riker Mount and is Carded. I also have Gaines County Park, NWA 3118 and others! Here's the link: http://cjsmeteorites.com/c-sales.html Be Well, CJ Lebel IMCA# 3432 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.cjsmeteorites.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re: solution to the number game
Why wouldnt everyone have to include a notice in an ebay auction as you stated above if they received specimens of any meteorite from the strewnfield after the initial find? Bob Evans I guess you missed my point - and that is that if you advertise your wares as 'THE SAME AS NWA xxx' then you arent putting words into the mouth of the nomcom - and NO ONE would have any buisness challanging your auctions. in the end any transaction would be a simple matter of a potential customer's good faith in your material - no matter how you describe it. - Original Message - From: stan . [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 7:03 PM Subject: solution to the number game Bob, If you want to sell your rocks as nwa 1110 - why not just include a notice in your ebay description specifically and unequivically stating that the material you are offering was not part of the nwa 1110 find that was recoverd - however your source for the material has sold it to you as nwa 1110 and your personal expertise in the field of meteoritics leads you to belive that the material is in fact the same meteorite as nwa 1110. that way there is proper disclosure. no one can say you are advetising something incorectly. to use this very specific example Adam doesnt have to worry about colelctors out there thinking they have a piece of nwa 1110 when they infact dont. and the customer can make an informed decision. I do not see how it would hurt your sales any because in the end they are all based upon the market confidence in the source anyway. Infact you could even market it as a benifit for your customers as you didnt have to go through the expense of submitting material for classification - HOWEVER they will simply have to trust your judgemt in identifying that this tiny fragment of rock really is a picritic shergotite and not a pebble that fell off of a cliff in washington state a few years ago. Meteorite numbers are much like slabbed coins. A pcgs ms65 high relief double eagle wil lsell for fair market value sight unseen. An unslabed ms-65 high relief from joe collector would not relize anywhere nearly as much, just like most collectors wouldnt spend 200$ a gram for a martian metoeirte that was simply a stone someone found on the side of the road and decided to declare as comming from mars. However when you present your customer with good, solid information as to the legitimacy of your claims in offering that gem of a coin you will see that the realized price will start to aproach that of what one might get if it were slabed. Same thing with meteorites. comments anyone? From: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Comcast Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:08:54 -0800 Bob, It is very simple, send a type specimen to NAU or any other NomCom authorized laboratory and I will recognize your material when the NomCom assigns it an official NWA number. Using the numbers NWA 1110 and NWA 1877 will never be acceptable because the material has already been voted on. It is a simple matter, send in a type specimen and all the fragments. The fragments will be visually compared to the type specimen by a competent scientist. If a qualified scientist argues to the NomCom they are all the same and the NomCom votes that this is ok they will all be assigned an official number. Every fragment in the NWA 1110 batch was looked at by Dr. Irving, submitted to the NomCom and a number was assigned to cover the 118 grams of fragments, not a gram more. I am not authorized to compare material and make official judgements and neither is Mike. All we can do is offer an opinion. In the case of a fall the NomCom rules are different. Here is link to explain how you can make your unclassified and un-numbered material official: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~glg100-p/Meteorite.html If you are too lazy to follow through that will become your problem. There is no excuse for number piggy-backing and it is against NomCom rules. If you do not respect them you have no right to call your material anything other than unclassified. Growing ever more tired of repeating myself to someone who can not grasp the simplest concepts, Adam - Original Message - From: Comcast Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers Well, What do you say Adam? Shall we send Mike our NWA1877 and NWA1110 Put up ... or shut up Bob Evans - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Comcast Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite
[meteorite-list] slabbed meteorites
I'm sure many drool over the possibility of establishing that system. It's worked so well in all other collectible markets to run profits up. Bill __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] slabbed meteorites
yhea, but i wounder how long it will take to get the equivalent of accugrade slabs in the meteorite market. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [meteorite-list] slabbed meteorites Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:13:43 + I'm sure many drool over the possibility of establishing that system. It's worked so well in all other collectible markets to run profits up. Bill __ 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
