[meteorite-list] Easter thoughts and meteorites

[John Lutzon via Meteorite-list]

   To all reading, my best,

  At this March 31, Easter Sunday, I wish my best to everyone for a wonderful 
day!!!.

   For some reason, I wondered if any meteorites are attributed to March 31 
and found these: As printed on the Met-Bul
  Avec - 1908 - IIAB
  Kasamatsu - 1938 - Chondrite
  Revestoke - 1965 - CI-1
  Zsadany - 1875 - H-5
Intentionally, left one out which may be close to Mr. MG ?

 Happy Easter, John
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Paul Harris via Meteorite-list]

March 29, 2024

Mr. Jason Utas

The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. (www.meteorites-for-sale.com) was mentioned 
in your post to the Meteorite List on March 28, 2024 (see below).


"I suppose it's not really that simple, because some misrepresented 
material is still going to get into circulation, which is a problem...  
Maybe some of the more experienced members in the Global Meteorite 
Association (GMA) can help Mark sort it out?  I don't know.  What's 
supposed to happen with NWA 14743 now?  I'm seeing active listings of 
what looks to me like at least two different meteorites, sold listings 
for both going back at least a year...pieces for sale on websites like 
www.meteorites-for-sale.com , sold 
pieces there...  It looks like a real headache.  I wouldn't know where 
to begin. "



Mr. Utas, for public record in this matter. Are you stating that the The 
Meteorite Exchange, Inc. is selling misrepresented material (NWA 14743 
sourced from Mr. Mark Lyon).

https://www.meteorites-for-sale.com/nwa-14743-meteorite.html

For public record please answer YES or NO so there is absolutely no 
ambiguity.


Sincerely,

Paul Harris, President
The Meteorite Exchange, Inc.




On 3/28/2024 12:02 PM, Jason Utas via Meteorite-list wrote:

Hello Everyone,

Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find 
themselves.


It's hard to disagree with /common sense/. Unfortunately, Mark has 
already made at least a few pretty bad /common sense/ pairing mistakes 
that I'm pretty sure have put misrepresented material into 
circulation.  Like this one , where 
Mark decided that an unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another 
dealer's published CR2.  And this one 
, where Mark decided that a CV3 was 
paired with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous 
chondrite.  More on these meteorites below.


Mark mentioned some of our past conversations.  I agree: they were 
pretty crazy, but I wouldn't say it's because of anything /I/ said.  I 
guess it's a good thing I saved them all, and can share them with you.


Let's get right to it.

In mid-January of 2023, I let John Humphreys know, in private, that 
some “Erg Chech 003" "CR2” slices he was offering on eBay looked to be 
swapped with a ~CV3.  John's one of the few dealers I would trust to 
handle an issue like that honestly and quickly.  Given the texture of 
the stone and its abundant CAIs, it couldn't have been a CR2.  Not 
possible. A photo of the material speaks for itself 
: a real specimen of Erg Chech 003 is 
on the right.  To his credit, John immediately pulled the slices he'd 
listed.  I had no way of knowing it at the time, but Mark had sold 
John this unclassified meteorite as the published CR2 Erg Chech 003 
.  Unfortunately, by the time I'd 
messaged John about the problem, some amount of the ~CV3 had already 
been sold on by a few of the dealers who routinely distribute Mark's 
material, and you can still find some of those unclassified ~CV3 
slices in circulation as CR2s / Erg Chech 003 
.  
Not great.


Had I said nothing, there's no reason to think anyone else would have 
caught the misrepresented material, and the rest of that ~CV3 would 
have been sold as the CR2.  Mark keeps telling people I'm often wrong, 
but...he admitted to the problem in private and refunded John 
. Hm.


I would add: I don't blame John Humphreys for what happened with the 
fake Erg Chech 003.  It's not reasonable to expect everyone to be able 
to ID a carbonaceous chondrite by sight, especially based on just a 
few small slices.  Someone classifying and selling new, unclassified 
meteorites has a greater burden of responsibility than someone who 
thinks they're buying a documented meteorite from a reputable dealer.  
Ultimately, Mark was the one who put those specimens into circulation 
labelled as something they weren't.  It should have been safe for John 
to trust him.


This "Erg Chech 003" ~CV3 is also a perfect example of Mark's ‘/rules 
for thee but not for me/.’  Mark argued in his email that Benzaki 
Mohamed's use of Jason Whitcomb's NWA number was different from Taza, 
Jikharra 001, etc., because Whitcomb's CK was "/probably a single 
person classification with low total known weight. Anyone with common 
sense can see that this is different from huge finds/."


Well, let's look up Erg Chech 003 
.  How many 
tonnes is it?  It has a TKW of...just 1.1 kilograms.  Oh. 
That's...really small.  And it's owned by...two dealers who often 
collaborate with each other. Not Mark.  So...not only did Mark use 
someone else's DCA number from a small find -- he screwed up the 
pairing when doing it and put misidentified material into 
circulation.  

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Mark Lyon via Meteorite-list]

Sorry. I am sure everyone is tired of this conversation, but I needed to
write one more email because I mis spoke about something, and this thing I
misspoke about should effectively end any credibility Jason Utas had in
this situation.  He accused me of using someone else's classification and
mispairing NWA 14743, and I had replied I had never used that number,
knowing that I had never paired a CV3 like that.  I looked into it more and
discovered that I had used the number because it was MY CLASSIFICATION, so
anything he said about me mispairing it is completely absurd.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=77242.  So, again, my main
point -- don't make irresponsible claims.  Regarding the CR2, I have always
been upfront regarding anyone I sold it to about where it came from, and
while I was waiting for classification (which is different from waiting for
analysis) I did tell some people that it was found in the same strewnfield
as erg chech 003 and was likely the same material.  Regarding Utas's claim
that it was "incorrectly paired' and actually a "CV3" I have a screenshot
of a conversation with the classifier, way back from may 2022 saying that
the writup was complete and then it would be submitted for classification
that next day. I don't know why classification has taken so long, but that
is really an issue with nom-com and the classifying scientist.   This site
won't let me post the photo here but I have shared the screenshot it with
the presidents of the IMCA and GMA (since Utas brought them into it) and it
is available for anyone who wants to see it.  On another note, it is kind
of weird that Jason brought up the IMCA and GMA at all, since he was forced
out of the IMCA over classification issues, and he is not a member of the
GMA.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:17 PM Mark Lyon  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> I am not going to extend this argument or bother reading past your first
> paragraph, but this is exactly the type of irresponsible claims that i am
> talking about.  I have no idea what Imgur is (the website you are sending
> photos from ) but I can tall you that none of those photographs are of my
> material, my hand or my yard.  They do say Mark Lyon at the bottom.  They
> don't make any reference to whose material it actually is or where these
> photographs come from.  I can also tell you that i have never claimed any
> of my meteorites were paired with NWA 14713.  Regarding erg chech 003, the
> photo you sent was again not my hand or my hard or my material, but I
> bought a few kilos of CR2 as paired with Erg chech 003 (I didn't "decide"
> it was paired but it was a large find and sold by a moroccan dealer from
> the same stewnfield) and that material has been analysed as CR2 and will
> have its own name soon.  I have no idea what the photo on the left is, but
> if I had to guess by the glove the photo on the right is probably Matt
> Streams.  I believe I did sell some to Matt Steam, and he probably put some
> up on ebay, but I guess my question is if unless you analysed the material
> what makes you so much more sure that it is a Cv3 than the classifying
> scientist who had the material and conducted the analysis?  Personally,
> deciding between two options, I would choose the insite over the scientist
> who actually analysed the material itself, whose job it is to be able to
> analyse the data, over someone who made the judgement just by looking at a
> photograph.  I have close to 100 classifications, and 95% of what I sell is
> material in which I am the main mass holder. I go out of my way to not use
> other people's classification.  With lunar, for example, everyone is
> selling bachar 003 (paired) whereas I went out of my way to get a new
> classification, NWA 15373.  Meteorites such as Erg Chech, Jikharra, etc,
> everyone is selling this material but I was on the original classification.
>   I don't blame them. it would be dumb to reclassify everytime anyone wants
> to sell.  Anyway, you can  write another long email if you want to, but I
> won't read that one either.  What I am saying is simple, and as an educated
> man and aspiring scientist you should understand it.  Don't make
> irresponsible claims.
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:03 PM Jason Utas 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find
>> themselves.
>>
>> It's hard to disagree with *common sense*.  Unfortunately, Mark has
>> already made at least a few pretty bad *common sense* pairing mistakes
>> that I'm pretty sure have put misrepresented material into circulation.
>> Like this one , where Mark decided that
>> an unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another dealer's published CR2.  And 
>> this
>> one , where Mark decided that a CV3 was
>> paired with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous chondrite.
>> More on these meteorites below.
>>
>> Mark mentioned some of our past 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Mark Lyon via Meteorite-list]

Jason,

I am not going to extend this argument or bother reading past your first
paragraph, but this is exactly the type of irresponsible claims that i am
talking about.  I have no idea what Imgur is (the website you are sending
photos from ) but I can tall you that none of those photographs are of my
material, my hand or my yard.  They do say Mark Lyon at the bottom.  They
don't make any reference to whose material it actually is or where these
photographs come from.  I can also tell you that i have never claimed any
of my meteorites were paired with NWA 14713.  Regarding erg chech 003, the
photo you sent was again not my hand or my hard or my material, but I
bought a few kilos of CR2 as paired with Erg chech 003 (I didn't "decide"
it was paired but it was a large find and sold by a moroccan dealer from
the same stewnfield) and that material has been analysed as CR2 and will
have its own name soon.  I have no idea what the photo on the left is, but
if I had to guess by the glove the photo on the right is probably Matt
Streams.  I believe I did sell some to Matt Steam, and he probably put some
up on ebay, but I guess my question is if unless you analysed the material
what makes you so much more sure that it is a Cv3 than the classifying
scientist who had the material and conducted the analysis?  Personally,
deciding between two options, I would choose the insite over the scientist
who actually analysed the material itself, whose job it is to be able to
analyse the data, over someone who made the judgement just by looking at a
photograph.  I have close to 100 classifications, and 95% of what I sell is
material in which I am the main mass holder. I go out of my way to not use
other people's classification.  With lunar, for example, everyone is
selling bachar 003 (paired) whereas I went out of my way to get a new
classification, NWA 15373.  Meteorites such as Erg Chech, Jikharra, etc,
everyone is selling this material but I was on the original classification.
  I don't blame them. it would be dumb to reclassify everytime anyone wants
to sell.  Anyway, you can  write another long email if you want to, but I
won't read that one either.  What I am saying is simple, and as an educated
man and aspiring scientist you should understand it.  Don't make
irresponsible claims.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:03 PM Jason Utas  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find
> themselves.
>
> It's hard to disagree with *common sense*.  Unfortunately, Mark has
> already made at least a few pretty bad *common sense* pairing mistakes
> that I'm pretty sure have put misrepresented material into circulation.
> Like this one , where Mark decided that
> an unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another dealer's published CR2.  And this
> one , where Mark decided that a CV3 was
> paired with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous chondrite.
> More on these meteorites below.
>
> Mark mentioned some of our past conversations.  I agree: they were pretty
> crazy, but I wouldn't say it's because of anything *I* said.  I guess
> it's a good thing I saved them all, and can share them with you.
>
> Let's get right to it.
>
> In mid-January of 2023, I let John Humphreys know, in private, that some
> “Erg Chech 003" "CR2” slices he was offering on eBay looked to be swapped
> with a ~CV3.  John's one of the few dealers I would trust to handle an
> issue like that honestly and quickly.  Given the texture of the stone and
> its abundant CAIs, it couldn't have been a CR2.  Not possible.  A photo
> of the material speaks for itself : a
> real specimen of Erg Chech 003 is on the right.  To his credit, John
> immediately pulled the slices he'd listed.  I had no way of knowing it at
> the time, but Mark had sold John this unclassified meteorite as the
> published CR2 Erg Chech 003 .  Unfortunately,
> by the time I'd messaged John about the problem, some amount of the ~CV3
> had already been sold on by a few of the dealers who routinely distribute
> Mark's material, and you can still find some of those unclassified ~CV3
> slices in circulation as CR2s / Erg Chech 003
> .
> Not great.
>
> Had I said nothing, there's no reason to think anyone else would have
> caught the misrepresented material, and the rest of that ~CV3 would have
> been sold as the CR2.  Mark keeps telling people I'm often wrong, but...he
> admitted to the problem in private and refunded John
> .  Hm.
>
> I would add: I don't blame John Humphreys for what happened with the fake
> Erg Chech 003.  It's not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to ID a
> carbonaceous chondrite by sight, especially based on just a few small
> slices.  Someone classifying and selling new, unclassified meteorites has 

[meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day

[Paul Swartz via Meteorite-list]

Saturday, Mar 30 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: Chug Chug 003

Contributed by: Timur Kryachko

http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/30/2024
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list