Re: [meteorite-list] Pebbly Rocks Testify to Old Streambed on Mars (MSL)

[Steve Dunklee]

Hmm heres another interesting possibility. The co2 frost covers a rock 
overnight then when daylight hits it thaws the co2 from the same direction 
repeatedly causing the pebbles to tumble a microscopic amount each day.
   It might take thousands of years for co2  to do the same kind of erosion 
water could do in a day. I know it takes heat for the gas to dissipate into the 
atmosphere so it would tend to stay thicker close to the surface like frost 
here in winter in low areas. Then as the martian winds whip up it would hit the 
denser gas near the surface and slosh it around and actually increase the 
pressure near the surface just like the storm surge of a hurricane. 
 More time and more experiments will tell us what is happening. I would 
like to see more temperature , pressure and wind speed measurements done close 
to the surface  in the streambeds and then out and above the stream beds. 
 Some simulations of mars atmosphere recreated in a lab might help. 
Atmospheric pressures directly on top of solid co2 as it sublimates might 
actually exceed for a few mm, earths atmospheric pressures until it dissipates. 
It takes energy to dissipate the gas into the atmosphere . and its pretty cold 
on Mars.
Cheers
Steve  
--- On Sat, 6/1/13, Pict  wrote:

> From: Pict 
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pebbly Rocks Testify to Old Streambed on Mars 
> (MSL)
> To: "Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com" 
> 
> Date: Saturday, June 1, 2013, 4:59 PM
> Aeolian desert sands can exhibit
> remarkable sphericity, rounding and
> sorting not unlike extremely mature water worn clastic
> sediments, but I
> don't think the phenomena extends to grain sizes beyond a
> few millimetres.
> It does seem conceivable that very high wind speeds with a
> denser
> atmosphere might get tumbling agitation going with larger
> rocks, but
> poorly sorted conglomerates suggests water not wind from an
> earthly
> perspective.
> John
> 
> On 01/06/2013 23:55, "Graham Ensor" 
> wrote:
> 
> >Yes, Steve, Larryerosion, if the flowing CO2 could
> produce any,
> >would not be anything like flowing water...eg tumbling
> rock into round
> >pebbles..the best you could hope for would be some sorts
> of ventifacts
> >being created...just as flowing gases (wind) create on
> earth.
> >
> >Graham
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:14 PM,  
> wrote:
> >> Hi Steve:
> >>
> >> Yes, I did see your video link. Thanks for sending
> that. All that this
> >> demonstrates is that CO2 is denser than air and
> that, when it displaces
> >> the oxygen, the candle goes out. So, even in this
> case it is not the
> >>force
> >> of the CO2 that is putting the flame out, but the
> lack of oxygen.
> >>
> >> CO2 gas is 1.5 as dense as air, but 1/500 the
> density of water. I doubt
> >> that you could mimic the know effects of moving
> water in a stream bed
> >>with
> >> a much less dense gas. If nothing else, the gas
> would disperse in the
> >> atmosphere rapidly unlike the much denser water.
> >>
> >> Sublimation is a very slow process, look at comet
> nuclei. There is a
> >>limit
> >> to how fast something can sublimate. As the ice
> warms up and turns to
> >>gas,
> >> the energy needed to do this actually cools the
> surface (the same thing
> >>as
> >> evaporative cooling which cools you as sweat
> evaporates off of your
> >>skin).
> >> I wrote several papers years ago on ice
> sublimation.
> >>
> >> The scientists used the sizes and size distribution
> of the rounded
> >>grains
> >> to compare with what we see in stream beds on Earth
> and can actually
> >>come
> >> up with depth, duration, and speed of the water. I
> do not see how you
> >> could replicate that with a gentle flow of gas no
> matter how long you
> >>had.
> >>
> >> Your idea is interesting, but decades of research
> have shown that
> >>geologic
> >> processes on Mars (and other objects) are not that
> different than what
> >>we
> >> see on Earth. If we see on Mars what looks like a
> stream bed on Earth,
> >>it
> >> is likely that the process that formed the stream
> bed on Earth (water)
> >> also did this on Mars. So, what conditions would
> have been necessary for
> >> the stream bed to have formed on Mars? A little
> more atmosphere and a
> >> little warmer!
> >>
> >> I hope that this helps.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> I believe  I did not describe properly
> what I was trying to say. The
> >>>video
> >>> link I sent clearly showed co2 gas being poured
> from a beaker. During
> >>>the
> >>> cold mars night a thin layer of co2 frost can
> form on a hillside. when
> >>> daylight returns and thaws the frost, the
> recently sublimated co2 being
> >>> colder than the surrounding atmosphere is going
> to flow down hill.
> >>> Millions of years of colder denser gas flowing
> down hill is going to
> >>>cause
> >>> erosion that simulates the flow of water.
> >>>     Mars has an 100
> thousand year polar freeze thaw cycle. When
> >>>billions
> >>> of tons of co2 sublimate from the poles its
> goi

Re: [meteorite-list] what is a...

[Michael Farmer]

I was wondering that myself. I just want a real Estherville, because this is 
slag.
Michael Farmer

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2013, at 9:03 PM, "Paul Gessler"  wrote:

> Can someone please tell me what a "Raspberry Tony" is?
> 
> Thanx
> 
> Paul Gessler
> __
> 
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] what is a...

[Paul Gessler]

Can someone please tell me what a "Raspberry Tony" is?

Thanx

Paul Gessler
__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Mars Odyssey THEMIS Images: May 27-31, 2013

[Ron Baalke]

MARS ODYSSEY THEMIS IMAGES
May 27-31, 2013

o Bakhuysen Crater (27 May 2013)
  http://themis.asu.edu/node/6169

o Yardangs (28 May 2013)
  http://themis.asu.edu/node/6170

o Yardangs (29 May 2013)
  http://themis.asu.edu/node/6171

o Dunes and Dust Devils (30 May 2013)
  http://themis.asu.edu/node/6172

o Channels (31 May 2013)
  http://themis.asu.edu/node/6173



All of the THEMIS images are archived here:

http://themis.asu.edu/latest.html

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory manages the 2001 Mars Odyssey mission 
for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. The Thermal Emission 
Imaging System (THEMIS) was developed by Arizona State University,
Tempe, in co.oration with Raytheon Santa Barbara Remote Sensing. 
The THEMIS investigation is led by Dr. Philip Christensen at Arizona State 
University. Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, is the prime contractor 
for the Odyssey project, and developed and built the orbiter. Mission 
operations are conducted jointly from Lockheed Martin and from JPL, a 
division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. 



__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Dawn Journal - May 31, 2013

[Ron Baalke]

http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/journal_05_31_13.asp

Dawn Journal
Dr. Marc Rayman
May 31, 2013

Dear Confidawnts,

Traveling from one alien world to another, Dawn is reliably powering its 
way through the main asteroid belt with its ion propulsion system. Vesta, 
the fascinating and complex protoplanet it explored in 2011 and 2012, 
falls farther and farther behind as the spacecraft gently and patiently 
reshapes its orbit around the sun, aiming for a 2015 rendezvous with dwarf 
planet Ceres.

The stalwart adventurer has recently completed its longest uninterrupted 
ion thrust period yet. As part of the campaign to conserve precious hydrazine 
propellant, Dawn now suspends thrusting once every four weeks to point 
its main antenna to Earth. (In contrast, spacecraft with conventional 
chemical propulsion spend the vast majority of time coasting.) Because 
of details of the mission operations schedule and the schedule for NASA's 
Deep Space Network, the thrust durations can vary by a few days. As a 
result, the spacecraft spent 31.2 days thrusting without a hiatus. This 
exceeds Deep Space 1's longest sustained powered flight of 29.2 days. 
While there currently are no plans to thrust for longer times, the unique 
craft certainly is capable of doing so. The principal limitation is how 
much data it can store on the performance of all subsystems (pressures, 
temperatures, currents, voltages, valve positions, etc.) for subsequent 
reporting to its terrestrial colleagues.

Thanks to the ship's dependability, the operations team has been able 
to devote much of its energies recently to developing and refining the 
complex plans for the exploration of Ceres. You might be among the privileged 
readers who will get a preview when we begin describing the plans later 
this year.

Controllers also have devised some special activities for the spacecraft 
to perform in the near future, accounts of which are predicted to be in 
the next two logs.

In addition, team members have had time to maintain their skills for when 
the spacecraft needs more attention. Earlier this month, they conducted 
an operational readiness test (ORT). One diabolical engineer carefully 
configured the Dawn spacecraft simulator at JPL to behave as if a pebble 
one-half of a centimeter (one-fifth of an inch) in diameter shooting through 
the asteroid belt collided with the probe at well over twice the velocity 
of a high-performance rifle bullet.

When the explorer entered this region of space, we discussed that it was 
not as risky as residents of other parts of the solar system might assume. 
Dawn does not require Han Solo's piloting skills to avoid most of the 
dangerous rocky debris.

The robot could tolerate such a wound, but it would require some help 
from operators to resume normal operations. This exercise presented the 
spacecraft team with an opportunity to spend several days working through 
the diagnosis and performing the steps necessary to continue the mission 
(using some of the ship's backup systems). While the specific problem 
is extremely unlikely to occur, the ORT provided valuable training for 
new members of the project and served to keep others sharp.

One more benefit of the smooth operations is the time that it enables 
your correspondent to write his third shortest log ever. (Feel free to 
do the implied research.) Frequent readers can only hope he strives to 
achieve such a gratifying feat again!

Dawn is 13 million kilometers (7.9 million miles) from Vesta and 54 million 
kilometers (34 million miles) from Ceres. It is also 3.25 AU (486 million 
kilometers or 302 million miles) from Earth, or 1,275 times as far as 
the moon and 3.20 times as far as the sun today. Radio signals, traveling 
at the universal limit of the speed of light, take 54 minutes to make 
the round trip.
__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] AD:332g Diogenite

[rachid chaoui]

Hello All
am offering an 332g diogeneit at very good price ,please contacte me
off list if you are interested
Best greetings

--
Rachid Chaoui
IMCA # 4157
__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Pebbly Rocks Testify to Old Streambed on Mars (MSL)

[Pict]

Aeolian desert sands can exhibit remarkable sphericity, rounding and
sorting not unlike extremely mature water worn clastic sediments, but I
don't think the phenomena extends to grain sizes beyond a few millimetres.
It does seem conceivable that very high wind speeds with a denser
atmosphere might get tumbling agitation going with larger rocks, but
poorly sorted conglomerates suggests water not wind from an earthly
perspective.
John

On 01/06/2013 23:55, "Graham Ensor"  wrote:

>Yes, Steve, Larryerosion, if the flowing CO2 could produce any,
>would not be anything like flowing water...eg tumbling rock into round
>pebbles..the best you could hope for would be some sorts of ventifacts
>being created...just as flowing gases (wind) create on earth.
>
>Graham
>
>On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:14 PM,   wrote:
>> Hi Steve:
>>
>> Yes, I did see your video link. Thanks for sending that. All that this
>> demonstrates is that CO2 is denser than air and that, when it displaces
>> the oxygen, the candle goes out. So, even in this case it is not the
>>force
>> of the CO2 that is putting the flame out, but the lack of oxygen.
>>
>> CO2 gas is 1.5 as dense as air, but 1/500 the density of water. I doubt
>> that you could mimic the know effects of moving water in a stream bed
>>with
>> a much less dense gas. If nothing else, the gas would disperse in the
>> atmosphere rapidly unlike the much denser water.
>>
>> Sublimation is a very slow process, look at comet nuclei. There is a
>>limit
>> to how fast something can sublimate. As the ice warms up and turns to
>>gas,
>> the energy needed to do this actually cools the surface (the same thing
>>as
>> evaporative cooling which cools you as sweat evaporates off of your
>>skin).
>> I wrote several papers years ago on ice sublimation.
>>
>> The scientists used the sizes and size distribution of the rounded
>>grains
>> to compare with what we see in stream beds on Earth and can actually
>>come
>> up with depth, duration, and speed of the water. I do not see how you
>> could replicate that with a gentle flow of gas no matter how long you
>>had.
>>
>> Your idea is interesting, but decades of research have shown that
>>geologic
>> processes on Mars (and other objects) are not that different than what
>>we
>> see on Earth. If we see on Mars what looks like a stream bed on Earth,
>>it
>> is likely that the process that formed the stream bed on Earth (water)
>> also did this on Mars. So, what conditions would have been necessary for
>> the stream bed to have formed on Mars? A little more atmosphere and a
>> little warmer!
>>
>> I hope that this helps.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I believe  I did not describe properly what I was trying to say. The
>>>video
>>> link I sent clearly showed co2 gas being poured from a beaker. During
>>>the
>>> cold mars night a thin layer of co2 frost can form on a hillside. when
>>> daylight returns and thaws the frost, the recently sublimated co2 being
>>> colder than the surrounding atmosphere is going to flow down hill.
>>> Millions of years of colder denser gas flowing down hill is going to
>>>cause
>>> erosion that simulates the flow of water.
>>> Mars has an 100 thousand year polar freeze thaw cycle. When
>>>billions
>>> of tons of co2 sublimate from the poles its going to flow out from the
>>> poles and cause erosion as it does so. Millions of years of this
>>> repeated cycle of the colder gas flowing down hill is going to carve
>>> what looks like river beds, canyons and lakes. all without any water
>>> needed.
>>> Cheers
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 5/31/13, Graham Ensor  wrote:
>>>
 From: Graham Ensor 
 Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pebbly Rocks Testify to Old Streambed on
 Mars (MSL)
 To: lebof...@lpl.arizona.edu
 Cc: "Steve Dunklee" , "Meteorite Mailing
List"
 , "Ron Baalke"
 
 Date: Friday, May 31, 2013, 11:39 PM
 Hi Larry, that's exactly the word I
 was trying to look
 for..."sublimates"...just could not bring it to mind. (any
 was being
 too lazy to look it up)  So my thoughts were
 rightvery unlikely
 for there ever to be any liquid CO2 on Mars.

 G

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:32 PM,  
 wrote:
 > Hi Graham and Steve:
 >
 > Technically, you are wrong--CO2 sublimates (turns from
 solid to gas) and
 > does not evaporate (turns from liquid to gas). The
 triple point (where
 > solid, liquid, and gas exist)of CO2 is 5.1 atmospheres.
 Since the "sea
 > level" pressure on Mars is about 0.006 atmospheres, the
 atmospheric
 > pressure on Mars would have had to have been 1000 times
 greater than it is
 > now. Not very likely. To have liquid water (enough for
 flowing rivers) the
 > pressure would have to be about 0.006 atmospheres at 0
 degrees C. In fact,
 > I think that this is how they originally defined the
 mean surface of Mars.
 > The only problem is that Mars is generally too cold a

Re: [meteorite-list] Pebbly Rocks Testify to Old Streambed on Mars (MSL)

[Graham Ensor]

Yes, Steve, Larryerosion, if the flowing CO2 could produce any,
would not be anything like flowing water...eg tumbling rock into round
pebbles..the best you could hope for would be some sorts of ventifacts
being created...just as flowing gases (wind) create on earth.

Graham

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:14 PM,   wrote:
> Hi Steve:
>
> Yes, I did see your video link. Thanks for sending that. All that this
> demonstrates is that CO2 is denser than air and that, when it displaces
> the oxygen, the candle goes out. So, even in this case it is not the force
> of the CO2 that is putting the flame out, but the lack of oxygen.
>
> CO2 gas is 1.5 as dense as air, but 1/500 the density of water. I doubt
> that you could mimic the know effects of moving water in a stream bed with
> a much less dense gas. If nothing else, the gas would disperse in the
> atmosphere rapidly unlike the much denser water.
>
> Sublimation is a very slow process, look at comet nuclei. There is a limit
> to how fast something can sublimate. As the ice warms up and turns to gas,
> the energy needed to do this actually cools the surface (the same thing as
> evaporative cooling which cools you as sweat evaporates off of your skin).
> I wrote several papers years ago on ice sublimation.
>
> The scientists used the sizes and size distribution of the rounded grains
> to compare with what we see in stream beds on Earth and can actually come
> up with depth, duration, and speed of the water. I do not see how you
> could replicate that with a gentle flow of gas no matter how long you had.
>
> Your idea is interesting, but decades of research have shown that geologic
> processes on Mars (and other objects) are not that different than what we
> see on Earth. If we see on Mars what looks like a stream bed on Earth, it
> is likely that the process that formed the stream bed on Earth (water)
> also did this on Mars. So, what conditions would have been necessary for
> the stream bed to have formed on Mars? A little more atmosphere and a
> little warmer!
>
> I hope that this helps.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>> I believe  I did not describe properly what I was trying to say. The video
>> link I sent clearly showed co2 gas being poured from a beaker. During the
>> cold mars night a thin layer of co2 frost can form on a hillside. when
>> daylight returns and thaws the frost, the recently sublimated co2 being
>> colder than the surrounding atmosphere is going to flow down hill.
>> Millions of years of colder denser gas flowing down hill is going to cause
>> erosion that simulates the flow of water.
>> Mars has an 100 thousand year polar freeze thaw cycle. When billions
>> of tons of co2 sublimate from the poles its going to flow out from the
>> poles and cause erosion as it does so. Millions of years of this
>> repeated cycle of the colder gas flowing down hill is going to carve
>> what looks like river beds, canyons and lakes. all without any water
>> needed.
>> Cheers
>> Steve
>>
>> --- On Fri, 5/31/13, Graham Ensor  wrote:
>>
>>> From: Graham Ensor 
>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pebbly Rocks Testify to Old Streambed on
>>> Mars (MSL)
>>> To: lebof...@lpl.arizona.edu
>>> Cc: "Steve Dunklee" , "Meteorite Mailing List"
>>> , "Ron Baalke"
>>> 
>>> Date: Friday, May 31, 2013, 11:39 PM
>>> Hi Larry, that's exactly the word I
>>> was trying to look
>>> for..."sublimates"...just could not bring it to mind. (any
>>> was being
>>> too lazy to look it up)  So my thoughts were
>>> rightvery unlikely
>>> for there ever to be any liquid CO2 on Mars.
>>>
>>> G
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:32 PM,  
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Graham and Steve:
>>> >
>>> > Technically, you are wrong--CO2 sublimates (turns from
>>> solid to gas) and
>>> > does not evaporate (turns from liquid to gas). The
>>> triple point (where
>>> > solid, liquid, and gas exist)of CO2 is 5.1 atmospheres.
>>> Since the "sea
>>> > level" pressure on Mars is about 0.006 atmospheres, the
>>> atmospheric
>>> > pressure on Mars would have had to have been 1000 times
>>> greater than it is
>>> > now. Not very likely. To have liquid water (enough for
>>> flowing rivers) the
>>> > pressure would have to be about 0.006 atmospheres at 0
>>> degrees C. In fact,
>>> > I think that this is how they originally defined the
>>> mean surface of Mars.
>>> > The only problem is that Mars is generally too cold at
>>> this pressure for
>>> > there to be liquid water, so you would need a warmer
>>> Mars (by a about 60
>>> > degrees centigrade for the "average" temperature) in
>>> order to get water
>>> > flowing on Mars. This is much more likely than a
>>> 1000-fold increase in
>>> > surface pressure.
>>> >
>>> > In fact, there is evidence for liquid water on Mars,
>>> but not in great
>>> > amounts (gullies, for example).
>>> >
>>> > Larry
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Steve,
>>> >>
>>> >> Liquid CO2 cannot exsist as a liquid at atmospheric
>>> pressure. It must
>>> >> be pressurized above 60.4 psi to remain as a
>>> liquidso would it
>

Re: [meteorite-list] Of Martian Rodents

[Jodie Reynolds]

Xerus martis ?  Atlantoxerus martis?

Looks like good eatin'!  Curiosity does have that [PEW PEW PEW!]
laser for a reason, right?

--- Jodie





Saturday, June 1, 2013, 9:06:50 AM, you wrote:

> History repeats itself. 

> Rats hitched rides on boats and infested many islands like Hawaii.
> It is clear to any student of history that the rat hitched a ride on
> Curiosity and died of disappointment when he realized he had not
> landed on our cheese filled moon but instead had landed on Mars. The
> present residents of Mars are now inserting probes into the rat with
> plans of reviving him and sending him back to earth to spy on us.

> Makes perfect sense to me ...
>  
> Mendy


>>
>> From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks 
>>To: Meteorite List  
>>Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:40 AM
>>Subject: [meteorite-list] Of Martian Rodents
>> 
>>
>>Sales of all Martian rodents are hereby suspended until further notice.
>>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/was-a-squirrel-discovered-on-mars-716191/
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>-
>>Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
>>Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
>>Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone
>>Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
>>RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
>>-
>>__
>>
>>Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>Meteorite-list mailing list
>>Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>> 
> __

> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list



-- 
Best regards,
 Jodiemailto:spacero...@spaceballoon.org

__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Of Martian Rodents

[Mendy Ouzillou]

History repeats itself. 

Rats hitched rides on boats and infested many islands like Hawaii. It is clear 
to any student of history that the rat hitched a ride on Curiosity and died of 
disappointment when he realized he had not landed on our cheese filled moon but 
instead had landed on Mars. The present residents of Mars are now inserting 
probes into the rat with plans of reviving him and sending him back to earth to 
spy on us.

Makes perfect sense to me ...
 
Mendy


>
> From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks 
>To: Meteorite List  
>Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:40 AM
>Subject: [meteorite-list] Of Martian Rodents
> 
>
>Sales of all Martian rodents are hereby suspended until further notice.
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/was-a-squirrel-discovered-on-mars-716191/
>
>
>-- 
>-
>Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
>Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
>Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone
>Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
>RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
>-
>__
>
>Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> 
__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Of Martian Rodents

[Galactic Stone & Ironworks]

Sales of all Martian rodents are hereby suspended until further notice.

http://www.zdnet.com/was-a-squirrel-discovered-on-mars-716191/


-- 
-
Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone
Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
-
__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

[Michael Farmer]

Ok, so no answers then. 
I really don't understand your wit sometimes. Sorry it is above my head.
So you refuse to answer why you sold me plastic label when your add said best 
provenance? Whoever bought the Bondoc and Murchison should step forward and get 
rid of that garbage.
I am trying to see where this mess got started. Clearly you have no interest in 
that.
See you in France, your piece will be hand delivered.
Michael Farmer


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2013, at 7:22 AM, "Martin Altmann"  
wrote:

> Mike, it's enough. I'm not your Raspberry Tony.
> 
>> I wrote to the list because you wrote ke a very nasty private email
> 
> I sent you a single email, yesterday at 11:11 p.m. containing the same 
> content about labels ect, just I wrote here today,
> plus offering you to send the Estherville back and to refund the purchase 
> price and the shipment costs.
> That email didn't contain any single harsh word, neither was it nastier than 
> the first email we wrote to the list today.
> An answer you didn't wrote to us, instead we could read your effusions this 
> morning on the list.
> So stop that immature clownery or look for somebody else to play with.
> 
> 
>> Where is my refund? I will be happy when my money is back in my account.
> 
> Your email yesterday came in half an hour earlier than our answer to you.
> As you might now, booking period of banks is in Germany (and Europe) ending 
> at 5:00p.m.
> And booking takes place only on working days not on weekends.
> For accounting and tax purposes we have to withdraw each Paypal-payment onto 
> our bank accounts.
> So we have first to refill the paypal-account again, which takes 2 working 
> days.
> Hence probably Wednesday you'll get your refund,
> 
> Which btw. matches the 5 days you had needed to pay the specimen.
> 
> Else, much fun still in continuing,
> I won't support you in that,
> as in past you often enough you talked yourself in a ride or fall on this 
> list,
> and anyway I trust enough in the competence of the collectors,
> to built their own opinion, what they will think about this.
> 
> So see you in Ensisheim,
> Until then I won't be at your disposal here.
> Have a nice day,
> Martin
> 
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com 
> [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Michael 
> Farmer
> Gesendet: Samstag, 1. Juni 2013 15:38
> An: Martin Altmann
> Cc: 
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described
> 
> Martin,
> Do you feel a plastic label printed on your home computer qualifies as an 
> "American Meteorite Laboratory" passport as you write in your email? 
> I can print such things in seconds, as can anyone. So by using your "usually" 
> very high standards, I can print €500 notes on my computer, as long as I put 
> the name of the European bank reserve on the fake, it would make it a real 
> €500 note? I think I'll try to pass a few around at dealers tables in 
> Ensisheim and see how many rocks I can buy.
> Sorry but this collector is calling your "passport" a fake travel document.
> 
> You sold this Estherville to me as an extremely rare well documented piece, 
> you clearly state that it is with AML labels, but there is no AML label, just 
> a plastic modern-made card. You know it is NOT am AML label, and selling it 
> as such is a scam. Since there is not label, no number on the stone, 
> absolutely nothing to show provenance, clearly the entire email you spent 
> hours writing was a sales gimmick.  You know I am a knowledgeable and serious 
> collector, so why you would pass off this manufactured piece to me I don't 
> know. Surely knowing my temper as you right here, you would know what the 
> response would be? The only reason I bought it is because you stated it was 
> AML with label. I figured that if it has an AML label then I was safe. I did 
> not consider that I would receive a plastic card in substitute for AML 
> documentation. I don't know who did it, or what "Romanian" collection it came 
> from, I can't understand how you passed that off as acceptable.
> 
> Where is my refund? I will be happy when my money is back in my account.
> 
> Why you are defending these fake pieces with a story about a mislabeled 
> meteorite I sold years ago I am not sure. The piece was cut and yes, it was 
> in the wrong box or bag or whatever.
> Mistake yes, fraud of making and selling fake old labels and provenance, no. 
> I have made at least one mistake mixing up a piece, but you know what, 
> thankfully a collector caught it, I OK'd him to cut and see and once cut we 
> recognized the error and removed the piece. The way things should go.
> 
> I wrote to the list because you wrote ke a very nasty private email telling 
> me how many decades you have been selling and how you could just resell the 
> piece angered me. You know they are fake, now the whole list knows, you can 
> compare your "murchison" to real murchisons and see

Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

[Martin Altmann]

Mike, it's enough. I'm not your Raspberry Tony.

>I wrote to the list because you wrote ke a very nasty private email

I sent you a single email, yesterday at 11:11 p.m. containing the same content 
about labels ect, just I wrote here today,
plus offering you to send the Estherville back and to refund the purchase price 
and the shipment costs.
That email didn't contain any single harsh word, neither was it nastier than 
the first email we wrote to the list today.
An answer you didn't wrote to us, instead we could read your effusions this 
morning on the list.
So stop that immature clownery or look for somebody else to play with.


>Where is my refund? I will be happy when my money is back in my account.

Your email yesterday came in half an hour earlier than our answer to you.
As you might now, booking period of banks is in Germany (and Europe) ending at 
5:00p.m.
And booking takes place only on working days not on weekends.
For accounting and tax purposes we have to withdraw each Paypal-payment onto 
our bank accounts.
So we have first to refill the paypal-account again, which takes 2 working days.
Hence probably Wednesday you'll get your refund,

Which btw. matches the 5 days you had needed to pay the specimen.

Else, much fun still in continuing,
I won't support you in that,
as in past you often enough you talked yourself in a ride or fall on this list,
and anyway I trust enough in the competence of the collectors,
to built their own opinion, what they will think about this.

So see you in Ensisheim,
Until then I won't be at your disposal here.
Have a nice day,
Martin


-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com 
[mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Michael 
Farmer
Gesendet: Samstag, 1. Juni 2013 15:38
An: Martin Altmann
Cc: 
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

Martin,
Do you feel a plastic label printed on your home computer qualifies as an 
"American Meteorite Laboratory" passport as you write in your email? 
I can print such things in seconds, as can anyone. So by using your "usually" 
very high standards, I can print €500 notes on my computer, as long as I put 
the name of the European bank reserve on the fake, it would make it a real €500 
note? I think I'll try to pass a few around at dealers tables in Ensisheim and 
see how many rocks I can buy.
Sorry but this collector is calling your "passport" a fake travel document.

You sold this Estherville to me as an extremely rare well documented piece, you 
clearly state that it is with AML labels, but there is no AML label, just a 
plastic modern-made card. You know it is NOT am AML label, and selling it as 
such is a scam. Since there is not label, no number on the stone, absolutely 
nothing to show provenance, clearly the entire email you spent hours writing 
was a sales gimmick.  You know I am a knowledgeable and serious collector, so 
why you would pass off this manufactured piece to me I don't know. Surely 
knowing my temper as you right here, you would know what the response would be? 
The only reason I bought it is because you stated it was AML with label. I 
figured that if it has an AML label then I was safe. I did not consider that I 
would receive a plastic card in substitute for AML documentation. I don't know 
who did it, or what "Romanian" collection it came from, I can't understand how 
you passed that off as acceptable.

Where is my refund? I will be happy when my money is back in my account.

Why you are defending these fake pieces with a story about a mislabeled 
meteorite I sold years ago I am not sure. The piece was cut and yes, it was in 
the wrong box or bag or whatever.
Mistake yes, fraud of making and selling fake old labels and provenance, no. I 
have made at least one mistake mixing up a piece, but you know what, thankfully 
a collector caught it, I OK'd him to cut and see and once cut we recognized the 
error and removed the piece. The way things should go.

I wrote to the list because you wrote ke a very nasty private email telling me 
how many decades you have been selling and how you could just resell the piece 
angered me. You know they are fake, now the whole list knows, you can compare 
your "murchison" to real murchisons and see there is no comparison. I don't 
want them resold onto perhaps other less knowledgable collectors. 

Something really really is fishy is going on here.

By the way, you sold me and others these pieces in this forum, so why not clear 
it up in this forum? 
I also do not want to see these things sold and resold for years to come.

What about the obvious fake Murchison? You don't even answer as to why you are 
selling such a piece.

I am really concerned at how this has come to pass.

Michael Farmer


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:05 AM, "Martin Altmann"  
wrote:

> Hi Mike and all,
> 
> 
> it’s really always sad, to experience, what internet did to some, 
> regarding commun

[meteorite-list] Ad-Auctions ending today, Chelyabinsk breccia, mars and moon rocks

[Matt Morgan]

Hi all...
I have some auctions ending today and tomorrow. Please have a look here : 
.

 Thanks for looking.
Matt
-- 
Matt Morgan
Mile High Meteorites
PO Box 151293
Lakewood CO 80215 USA
http://www.mhmeteorites.com
Find Us on Facebook

__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

[Michael Farmer]

I agree, and I have 50 kilograms of Bondoc, directly exchanged out of the ASU 
meteorite vault. I do not believe that is a meteorite as well. I also think 
slag as a first guess, same as my "Estherville". I would gladly cut and have 
tested if I wasn't out $1300. I want my money back.

Michael Farmer
 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:23 AM, Jason Utas  wrote:

> "If you take Bondoc, the specimen numbers are absolutely consistent with all
> the numbers of the Huss-Bondocs offered by Geoff Notkin, or at Arnaud in the
> Tricottet Collection or on Murray’s fine new collection site or those Peter
> Marmet showed us."
> 
> Yes, but the rear (and cut face of it) look like slag compared to
> other Bondocs on the market.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0&_nkw=bondoc+meteorite&_sacat=0&_from=R40
> 
> There are a variety of textures, but none so porous, and the knobbly
> back and metal distribution look rather like slag.  Such observations
> are not conclusive, but...meh.
> 
> I'd return or ditch the material.
> 
> Regards,
> Jason
> 
> www.fallsandfinds.com
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Martin Altmann
>  wrote:
>> Hi Mike and all,
>> 
>> 
>> it’s really always sad, to experience, what internet did to some, regarding
>> communication, couth and manners.
>> As told yesterday to you, as you are obviously not content with the
>> specimen, we offered you to send in back and to refund you.
>> Your temper and your readiness to doom and damn each and everyone in public,
>> as soon as an opportunity shows up, is legendary on that list here,
>> as the archives tell manifold and that behavior caused so many new
>> collectors to turn their backs on to their new hobby, when they read your
>> endless flame wars here on the list, because they had imagined meteorite
>> collecting more august than to witness brawls on the fish-market.
>> 
>> Here you can observe a difference about Andi’s and my notion of the
>> meteorite scene, we never took advantage in trying to badmouth you, when you
>> sold e.g. a “Bensour” of 85g to S.A. which landed with your label at M.V.,
>> who asked you again and you identified it without doubts as Bensour, but
>> after he cut it, it turned out to be H and rather a Bassikonou.
>> 
>> To the specimens.
>> They originally stem from an old private collection from Hungary. A
>> collection from pre-desert times.
>> As you might remember even from the times, when you were still peddling with
>> your little bag with your sales inventory from client to client,
>> in former times, the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s – the idea of
>> “pedigree”-collecting wasn’t born yet, the fascination emanating from the
>> specimens  themselves, the fact that they were meteorites, was for the
>> collectors overwhelming enough, so that they did not need the little
>> extra-boost of having a written note, from whom they had acquired them
>> (because they knew it anyway). Hence they were proud on the specimens as
>> they were now their specimens, so they wrote their own labels and threw
>> often the labels of the sellers/source away.
>> I don’t know how many specimens you acquired from private collections of
>> these times, but you will agree, that the majority of such specimens comes
>> without any label or they come with the label of the collector, and we at
>> least had dozens of cases, where the old original label was preserved, but
>> where the collector had cut off the part with the name of the dealer or the
>> museum.
>> Here with these two specimens of Estherville and Bondoc, it was a luck, that
>> the labels – why the collector enlarged and laminated once them we don’t
>> know, maybe for his collection filing box – gave the hint, where the
>> collector once had acquired them from.
>> They were Huss specimens. And Huss at that time wasn’t the glorified
>> successor of Nininger, he was nothing else than a dealer for his
>> contemporaries, just like today, a Hupe, a Haiderer or a Cottingham for us.
>> 
>> If you take Bondoc, the specimen numbers are absolutely consistent with all
>> the numbers of the Huss-Bondocs offered by Geoff Notkin, or at Arnaud in the
>> Tricottet Collection or on Murray’s fine new collection site or those Peter
>> Marmet showed us.
>> Btw. none of these is listed in the both Huss-catalogues, none of these got
>> a number painted on the surface by Huss.
>> (We would have expected you to know that, as U.S.-expert)
>> 
>> As told, we are convinced of the authenticity of the specimens, as well as
>> those esteemed list members, who had them already in their hands.
>> And as it is our policy, we offer always a return to our private buyers.
>> So thank you Anne, Jeff and Mike for your efforts, to keep the “Market”
>> clean, but we don’t see yet any reason for hysteria.
>> (Aside from the likeliness, that we after 33 years of meteorite collecting
>> and 10+ years meteorite dealing, would have nothing better to do,
>> than to forge Esthervilles and Bondocs and t

Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

[Michael Farmer]

By the way, I love your story about labels being thrown away and new ones made 
up, surely you could have mentioned this little detail in your sales pitch and 
this could have been avoided because I never would have made the purchase. 
Since you hyped the AML label as a crucial part of the package, surely with 
your typical very German attention to detail (I mean that in a very good way as 
Germans are unmatched in that category) you would have also considered that 
perhaps the small part about plastic man-made labels might actually be 
important enough to include in the sales brochure. A small but important detail 
that I do not believe you missed, but willingly lied to me about.

Issue the refund please.

Michael Farmer

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:05 AM, "Martin Altmann"  
wrote:

> Hi Mike and all,
> 
> 
> it’s really always sad, to experience, what internet did to some, regarding
> communication, couth and manners.
> As told yesterday to you, as you are obviously not content with the
> specimen, we offered you to send in back and to refund you.
> Your temper and your readiness to doom and damn each and everyone in public,
> as soon as an opportunity shows up, is legendary on that list here,
> as the archives tell manifold and that behavior caused so many new
> collectors to turn their backs on to their new hobby, when they read your
> endless flame wars here on the list, because they had imagined meteorite
> collecting more august than to witness brawls on the fish-market.
> 
> Here you can observe a difference about Andi’s and my notion of the
> meteorite scene, we never took advantage in trying to badmouth you, when you
> sold e.g. a “Bensour” of 85g to S.A. which landed with your label at M.V.,
> who asked you again and you identified it without doubts as Bensour, but
> after he cut it, it turned out to be H and rather a Bassikonou.
> 
> To the specimens.
> They originally stem from an old private collection from Hungary. A
> collection from pre-desert times.
> As you might remember even from the times, when you were still peddling with
> your little bag with your sales inventory from client to client,
> in former times, the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s – the idea of
> “pedigree”-collecting wasn’t born yet, the fascination emanating from the
> specimens  themselves, the fact that they were meteorites, was for the
> collectors overwhelming enough, so that they did not need the little
> extra-boost of having a written note, from whom they had acquired them
> (because they knew it anyway). Hence they were proud on the specimens as
> they were now their specimens, so they wrote their own labels and threw
> often the labels of the sellers/source away.
> I don’t know how many specimens you acquired from private collections of
> these times, but you will agree, that the majority of such specimens comes
> without any label or they come with the label of the collector, and we at
> least had dozens of cases, where the old original label was preserved, but
> where the collector had cut off the part with the name of the dealer or the
> museum.
> Here with these two specimens of Estherville and Bondoc, it was a luck, that
> the labels – why the collector enlarged and laminated once them we don’t
> know, maybe for his collection filing box – gave the hint, where the
> collector once had acquired them from. 
> They were Huss specimens. And Huss at that time wasn’t the glorified
> successor of Nininger, he was nothing else than a dealer for his
> contemporaries, just like today, a Hupe, a Haiderer or a Cottingham for us.
> 
> If you take Bondoc, the specimen numbers are absolutely consistent with all
> the numbers of the Huss-Bondocs offered by Geoff Notkin, or at Arnaud in the
> Tricottet Collection or on Murray’s fine new collection site or those Peter
> Marmet showed us.
> Btw. none of these is listed in the both Huss-catalogues, none of these got
> a number painted on the surface by Huss. 
> (We would have expected you to know that, as U.S.-expert)
> 
> As told, we are convinced of the authenticity of the specimens, as well as
> those esteemed list members, who had them already in their hands.
> And as it is our policy, we offer always a return to our private buyers.
> So thank you Anne, Jeff and Mike for your efforts, to keep the “Market”
> clean, but we don’t see yet any reason for hysteria.
> (Aside from the likeliness, that we after 33 years of meteorite collecting
> and 10+ years meteorite dealing, would have nothing better to do,
> than to forge Esthervilles and Bondocs and to fake a legend, to sell them at
> those cheapest prices we did).
> 
> However, and there you most probably will agree,
> we see no sense in a written theoretical discussion here on the list, but
> like it the sober way.
> You’ll bring the Estherville to Ensisheim, we got so many requests for that
> very specimen and there are so many experts,
> who will identify it as that, what it is, that we won’t be in no way
> reluctant or

Re: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized "meteorites"

[Michael Farmer]

I was looking at the sale on my iPhone when I made the purchase. I never 
considered that Martin would pass me a fake label through his hands knowingly. 
I was busy and it was not a major purchase so I didn't look carefully enough. 
You can never say that this plastic modern label suggest in any way that these 
are AML pieces.
However I am dead serious about my collection and the integrity of this 
business. As a dealer in meteorites, the loss of trust in material is the most 
dangerous thing that could happen. If we don't remove these fakes from the 
market, we are in trouble.
I dont care who made it, but I can't believe Martin would ever sell such things.
Michael Farmer
 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Jason Utas  wrote:

> Hm.  I said as much when I saw the Bondoc label on facebook some days
> ago.  My comment describing the issue with the label has since been
> removed by Martin.
> 
> The labels are computer-printed (notice the bottom of every "g"
> missing on the Bondoc label) and the font and underlining is wrong for
> AML labels.  The pictured labels even use the typical European " , "
> instead of a " . " when describing the weights of the specimens [
> xxx,x grams ].  And then there's the glossy paper...
> 
> Painfully obvious fakes, probably made in Europe given the punctuation.
> 
> I wonder where they came from...and why my observations were not only
> ignored, but erased.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> www.fallsandfinds.com
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Michael Farmer  wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure the piece sold as Estherville is not a meteorite as well. It 
>> certainly does not match up with my other Estherville pieces.
>> I would like to know where this material originated. The labels are fake, 
>> and I am highly disappointed that this stuff has entered the market.
>> 
>> Michael Farmer
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On May 31, 2013, at 9:24 PM, "Jeff Kuyken"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Mike, all,
>>> 
>>> As an Aussie, I can say with 100% absolute certainty that this isn't
>>> Murchison. It's not even close. In fact, I'm actually wondering it's a
>>> meteorite at all as it looks more like some type of porphyritic rock. The
>>> only meteorite I have seen that looks even remotely like this would be a CV3
>>> dark inclusion. But the rectangular fragment on the back side doesn't bode
>>> well for a chondritic meteorite either. It would be easier to tell
>>> in-person.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com
>>> [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael
>>> Farmer
>>> Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:52 PM
>>> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized "meteorites"
>>> 
>>> Martin,
>>> 
>>> I am sorry but this IS NOT Murchison, and the Estherville IS NOT
>>> Estherville.
>>> I emailed you regarding the Murchison and the fact that the photos clearly
>>> show an NWA type old carbonaceous chondrite only minutes after you posted to
>>> the list, and got no response.
>>> Anyone who has ever laid eyes on Murchison knows that it does not have
>>> desert varnish on the outside, nor white chondrules and CAI's on a CV3
>>> matrix.
>>> I feel sorry for whoever got burned on that one. You advertised the low
>>> price, I guess it is low because it is not Murchison.
>>> 
>>> anyone reading this, feel free to speak up and tell us how this "Murchison"
>>> looks compared to real Murchison.
>>> http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_004.JPG
>>> http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_003.JPG
>>> http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_001.JPG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I bought the Estherville which you claim is from American Meteorite
>>> Laboratory.
>>> I assumed since you advertised and showed a label that it was real, I was
>>> reading my email on an iphone while at the Laboratory in ASU, I showed the
>>> photo of the "Murchison" to the people in the lab who just laughed.
>>> My spider senses were not in order obviously because I went ahead and paid
>>> for the Estherville. I received it today, and it is NOT Estherville, I am
>>> pretty certain it is not a meteorite. The crust looks fake, or slaggy. I
>>> have more than 50 pieces of Estherville all from British Museum and
>>> Smithsonian, and this isn't close. Furthemore the lable is nothing more than
>>> a printed piece of paper laminated.
>>> I have the Nininger and Huss collections of meteorites books, and
>>> Estherville under Nininger is #42, Huss is H230. Again, some homework on my
>>> part would have caused me to not purchase this piece, but the price was good
>>> and I thought it would sell fast (I bought it in seconds). It is a firm
>>> reminder that something too cheap to be true, isn't!
>>> 
>>> You piece has no number on the stone (
>>> Nininger and Huss both would have matched the number on the label and
>>> painted it on the stone).
>>> And the AML

Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

[Michael Farmer]

Martin, 
Do you feel a plastic label printed on your home computer qualifies as an 
"American Meteorite Laboratory" passport as you write in your email? 
I can print such things in seconds, as can anyone. So by using your "usually" 
very high standards, I can print €500 notes on my computer, as long as I put 
the name of the European bank reserve on the fake, it would make it a real €500 
note? I think I'll try to pass a few around at dealers tables in Ensisheim and 
see how many rocks I can buy.
Sorry but this collector is calling your "passport" a fake travel document.

You sold this Estherville to me as an extremely rare well documented piece, you 
clearly state that it is with AML labels, but there is no AML label, just a 
plastic modern-made card. You know it is NOT am AML label, and selling it as 
such is a scam. Since there is not label, no number on the stone, absolutely 
nothing to show provenance, clearly the entire email you spent hours writing 
was a sales gimmick.  You know I am a knowledgeable and serious collector, so 
why you would pass off this manufactured piece to me I don't know. Surely 
knowing my temper as you right here, you would know what the response would be? 
The only reason I bought it is because you stated it was AML with label. I 
figured that if it has an AML label then I was safe. I did not consider that I 
would receive a plastic card in substitute for AML documentation. I don't know 
who did it, or what "Romanian" collection it came from, I can't understand how 
you passed that off as acceptable.

Where is my refund? I will be happy when my money is back in my account.

Why you are defending these fake pieces with a story about a mislabeled 
meteorite I sold years ago I am not sure. The piece was cut and yes, it was in 
the wrong box or bag or whatever.
Mistake yes, fraud of making and selling fake old labels and provenance, no. I 
have made at least one mistake mixing up a piece, but you know what, thankfully 
a collector caught it, I OK'd him to cut and see and once cut we recognized the 
error and removed the piece. The way things should go.

I wrote to the list because you wrote ke a very nasty private email telling me 
how many decades you have been selling and how you could just resell the piece 
angered me. You know they are fake, now the whole list knows, you can compare 
your "murchison" to real murchisons and see there is no comparison. I don't 
want them resold onto perhaps other less knowledgable collectors. 

Something really really is fishy is going on here.

By the way, you sold me and others these pieces in this forum, so why not clear 
it up in this forum? 
I also do not want to see these things sold and resold for years to come.

What about the obvious fake Murchison? You don't even answer as to why you are 
selling such a piece.

I am really concerned at how this has come to pass.

Michael Farmer


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:05 AM, "Martin Altmann"  
wrote:

> Hi Mike and all,
> 
> 
> it’s really always sad, to experience, what internet did to some, regarding
> communication, couth and manners.
> As told yesterday to you, as you are obviously not content with the
> specimen, we offered you to send in back and to refund you.
> Your temper and your readiness to doom and damn each and everyone in public,
> as soon as an opportunity shows up, is legendary on that list here,
> as the archives tell manifold and that behavior caused so many new
> collectors to turn their backs on to their new hobby, when they read your
> endless flame wars here on the list, because they had imagined meteorite
> collecting more august than to witness brawls on the fish-market.
> 
> Here you can observe a difference about Andi’s and my notion of the
> meteorite scene, we never took advantage in trying to badmouth you, when you
> sold e.g. a “Bensour” of 85g to S.A. which landed with your label at M.V.,
> who asked you again and you identified it without doubts as Bensour, but
> after he cut it, it turned out to be H and rather a Bassikonou.
> 
> To the specimens.
> They originally stem from an old private collection from Hungary. A
> collection from pre-desert times.
> As you might remember even from the times, when you were still peddling with
> your little bag with your sales inventory from client to client,
> in former times, the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s – the idea of
> “pedigree”-collecting wasn’t born yet, the fascination emanating from the
> specimens  themselves, the fact that they were meteorites, was for the
> collectors overwhelming enough, so that they did not need the little
> extra-boost of having a written note, from whom they had acquired them
> (because they knew it anyway). Hence they were proud on the specimens as
> they were now their specimens, so they wrote their own labels and threw
> often the labels of the sellers/source away.
> I don’t know how many specimens you acquired from private collections of
> these times, but you will agree, that the 

Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

[Martin Altmann]

Hi Jason,

as told, I won't discuss that until perhaps in 3 weeks.
Last year I almost bought the farm, therefore I have no fervor anymore to
take part in such kind of discussions.
I experience once some years ago in Germany a really unbelievable dirty
rumpus against me, which dissolved first in a little cloud of dust and than
in smooth zero. There I still allowed myself to let me a nerves-cancer grow.
But now I learned, it's not worth time and effort. So sorry for the popcorn
seller, I will stay out. Especially from silly dealers' fights.

I swapped as a collector for decades, I sold so many thousands specimens, I
can't remember to have received a single doubt or complaint about
authenticity.

The labels are a nice extra, the persons and the source we acquired the
specimens from have zero to do with contemporary meteorite market. And
anyway, at those prices we offered them, we could have also thrown the
labels in the dustbin before, and they would have sold fast.

Just a request came in from - no offense meant - a veteran collector of
broad experience, in whom I trust more to rate the specimen, than in your
tele-diagnosis-skills, asking whether the Estherville would be free again
now.

So it's quite simple and valid not only for us, but for anyone wanting to
buy a meteoritic specimen:
If you have doubts in the specimen or in the seller:  Just don't buy.

And these were my last cents
in that non-affair.
Martin


-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jason Utas [mailto:meteorite...@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Samstag, 1. Juni 2013 14:23
An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite-list
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

"If you take Bondoc, the specimen numbers are absolutely consistent with all
the numbers of the Huss-Bondocs offered by Geoff Notkin, or at Arnaud in the
Tricottet Collection or on Murray’s fine new collection site or those Peter
Marmet showed us."

Yes, but the rear (and cut face of it) look like slag compared to other
Bondocs on the market.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0&_nkw=bon
doc+meteorite&_sacat=0&_from=R40

There are a variety of textures, but none so porous, and the knobbly back
and metal distribution look rather like slag.  Such observations are not
conclusive, but...meh.

I'd return or ditch the material.

Regards,
Jason

www.fallsandfinds.com


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Martin Altmann 
wrote:
> Hi Mike and all,
>
>
> it’s really always sad, to experience, what internet did to some, 
> regarding communication, couth and manners.
> As told yesterday to you, as you are obviously not content with the 
> specimen, we offered you to send in back and to refund you.
> Your temper and your readiness to doom and damn each and everyone in 
> public, as soon as an opportunity shows up, is legendary on that list 
> here, as the archives tell manifold and that behavior caused so many 
> new collectors to turn their backs on to their new hobby, when they 
> read your endless flame wars here on the list, because they had 
> imagined meteorite collecting more august than to witness brawls on the
fish-market.
>
> Here you can observe a difference about Andi’s and my notion of the 
> meteorite scene, we never took advantage in trying to badmouth you, 
> when you sold e.g. a “Bensour” of 85g to S.A. which landed with your 
> label at M.V., who asked you again and you identified it without 
> doubts as Bensour, but after he cut it, it turned out to be H and rather a
Bassikonou.
>
> To the specimens.
> They originally stem from an old private collection from Hungary. A 
> collection from pre-desert times.
> As you might remember even from the times, when you were still 
> peddling with your little bag with your sales inventory from client to 
> client, in former times, the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s – the idea of 
> “pedigree”-collecting wasn’t born yet, the fascination emanating from 
> the specimens  themselves, the fact that they were meteorites, was for 
> the collectors overwhelming enough, so that they did not need the 
> little extra-boost of having a written note, from whom they had 
> acquired them (because they knew it anyway). Hence they were proud on 
> the specimens as they were now their specimens, so they wrote their 
> own labels and threw often the labels of the sellers/source away.
> I don’t know how many specimens you acquired from private collections 
> of these times, but you will agree, that the majority of such 
> specimens comes without any label or they come with the label of the 
> collector, and we at least had dozens of cases, where the old original 
> label was preserved, but where the collector had cut off the part with 
> the name of the dealer or the museum.
> Here with these two specimens of Estherville and Bondoc, it was a 
> luck, that the labels – why the collector enlarged and laminated once 
> them we don’t know, maybe for his collection filing box – gave the 
> hint, where the collector once had acquired 

Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

[Jason Utas]

"If you take Bondoc, the specimen numbers are absolutely consistent with all
the numbers of the Huss-Bondocs offered by Geoff Notkin, or at Arnaud in the
Tricottet Collection or on Murray’s fine new collection site or those Peter
Marmet showed us."

Yes, but the rear (and cut face of it) look like slag compared to
other Bondocs on the market.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0&_nkw=bondoc+meteorite&_sacat=0&_from=R40

There are a variety of textures, but none so porous, and the knobbly
back and metal distribution look rather like slag.  Such observations
are not conclusive, but...meh.

I'd return or ditch the material.

Regards,
Jason

www.fallsandfinds.com


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Martin Altmann
 wrote:
> Hi Mike and all,
>
>
> it’s really always sad, to experience, what internet did to some, regarding
> communication, couth and manners.
> As told yesterday to you, as you are obviously not content with the
> specimen, we offered you to send in back and to refund you.
> Your temper and your readiness to doom and damn each and everyone in public,
> as soon as an opportunity shows up, is legendary on that list here,
> as the archives tell manifold and that behavior caused so many new
> collectors to turn their backs on to their new hobby, when they read your
> endless flame wars here on the list, because they had imagined meteorite
> collecting more august than to witness brawls on the fish-market.
>
> Here you can observe a difference about Andi’s and my notion of the
> meteorite scene, we never took advantage in trying to badmouth you, when you
> sold e.g. a “Bensour” of 85g to S.A. which landed with your label at M.V.,
> who asked you again and you identified it without doubts as Bensour, but
> after he cut it, it turned out to be H and rather a Bassikonou.
>
> To the specimens.
> They originally stem from an old private collection from Hungary. A
> collection from pre-desert times.
> As you might remember even from the times, when you were still peddling with
> your little bag with your sales inventory from client to client,
> in former times, the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s – the idea of
> “pedigree”-collecting wasn’t born yet, the fascination emanating from the
> specimens  themselves, the fact that they were meteorites, was for the
> collectors overwhelming enough, so that they did not need the little
> extra-boost of having a written note, from whom they had acquired them
> (because they knew it anyway). Hence they were proud on the specimens as
> they were now their specimens, so they wrote their own labels and threw
> often the labels of the sellers/source away.
> I don’t know how many specimens you acquired from private collections of
> these times, but you will agree, that the majority of such specimens comes
> without any label or they come with the label of the collector, and we at
> least had dozens of cases, where the old original label was preserved, but
> where the collector had cut off the part with the name of the dealer or the
> museum.
> Here with these two specimens of Estherville and Bondoc, it was a luck, that
> the labels – why the collector enlarged and laminated once them we don’t
> know, maybe for his collection filing box – gave the hint, where the
> collector once had acquired them from.
> They were Huss specimens. And Huss at that time wasn’t the glorified
> successor of Nininger, he was nothing else than a dealer for his
> contemporaries, just like today, a Hupe, a Haiderer or a Cottingham for us.
>
> If you take Bondoc, the specimen numbers are absolutely consistent with all
> the numbers of the Huss-Bondocs offered by Geoff Notkin, or at Arnaud in the
> Tricottet Collection or on Murray’s fine new collection site or those Peter
> Marmet showed us.
> Btw. none of these is listed in the both Huss-catalogues, none of these got
> a number painted on the surface by Huss.
> (We would have expected you to know that, as U.S.-expert)
>
> As told, we are convinced of the authenticity of the specimens, as well as
> those esteemed list members, who had them already in their hands.
> And as it is our policy, we offer always a return to our private buyers.
> So thank you Anne, Jeff and Mike for your efforts, to keep the “Market”
> clean, but we don’t see yet any reason for hysteria.
> (Aside from the likeliness, that we after 33 years of meteorite collecting
> and 10+ years meteorite dealing, would have nothing better to do,
> than to forge Esthervilles and Bondocs and to fake a legend, to sell them at
> those cheapest prices we did).
>
> However, and there you most probably will agree,
> we see no sense in a written theoretical discussion here on the list, but
> like it the sober way.
> You’ll bring the Estherville to Ensisheim, we got so many requests for that
> very specimen and there are so many experts,
> who will identify it as that, what it is, that we won’t be in no way
> reluctant or shy to show the specimen to each and everyone,
> who wants.

Re: [meteorite-list] Pebbly Rocks Testify to Old Streambed on Mars (MSL)

[lebofsky]

Hi Steve:

Yes, I did see your video link. Thanks for sending that. All that this
demonstrates is that CO2 is denser than air and that, when it displaces
the oxygen, the candle goes out. So, even in this case it is not the force
of the CO2 that is putting the flame out, but the lack of oxygen.

CO2 gas is 1.5 as dense as air, but 1/500 the density of water. I doubt
that you could mimic the know effects of moving water in a stream bed with
a much less dense gas. If nothing else, the gas would disperse in the
atmosphere rapidly unlike the much denser water.

Sublimation is a very slow process, look at comet nuclei. There is a limit
to how fast something can sublimate. As the ice warms up and turns to gas,
the energy needed to do this actually cools the surface (the same thing as
evaporative cooling which cools you as sweat evaporates off of your skin).
I wrote several papers years ago on ice sublimation.

The scientists used the sizes and size distribution of the rounded grains
to compare with what we see in stream beds on Earth and can actually come
up with depth, duration, and speed of the water. I do not see how you
could replicate that with a gentle flow of gas no matter how long you had.

Your idea is interesting, but decades of research have shown that geologic
processes on Mars (and other objects) are not that different than what we
see on Earth. If we see on Mars what looks like a stream bed on Earth, it
is likely that the process that formed the stream bed on Earth (water)
also did this on Mars. So, what conditions would have been necessary for
the stream bed to have formed on Mars? A little more atmosphere and a
little warmer!

I hope that this helps.

Larry




> I believe  I did not describe properly what I was trying to say. The video
> link I sent clearly showed co2 gas being poured from a beaker. During the
> cold mars night a thin layer of co2 frost can form on a hillside. when
> daylight returns and thaws the frost, the recently sublimated co2 being
> colder than the surrounding atmosphere is going to flow down hill.
> Millions of years of colder denser gas flowing down hill is going to cause
> erosion that simulates the flow of water.
> Mars has an 100 thousand year polar freeze thaw cycle. When billions
> of tons of co2 sublimate from the poles its going to flow out from the
> poles and cause erosion as it does so. Millions of years of this
> repeated cycle of the colder gas flowing down hill is going to carve
> what looks like river beds, canyons and lakes. all without any water
> needed.
> Cheers
> Steve
>
> --- On Fri, 5/31/13, Graham Ensor  wrote:
>
>> From: Graham Ensor 
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pebbly Rocks Testify to Old Streambed on
>> Mars (MSL)
>> To: lebof...@lpl.arizona.edu
>> Cc: "Steve Dunklee" , "Meteorite Mailing List"
>> , "Ron Baalke"
>> 
>> Date: Friday, May 31, 2013, 11:39 PM
>> Hi Larry, that's exactly the word I
>> was trying to look
>> for..."sublimates"...just could not bring it to mind. (any
>> was being
>> too lazy to look it up)  So my thoughts were
>> rightvery unlikely
>> for there ever to be any liquid CO2 on Mars.
>>
>> G
>>
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:32 PM,  
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Graham and Steve:
>> >
>> > Technically, you are wrong--CO2 sublimates (turns from
>> solid to gas) and
>> > does not evaporate (turns from liquid to gas). The
>> triple point (where
>> > solid, liquid, and gas exist)of CO2 is 5.1 atmospheres.
>> Since the "sea
>> > level" pressure on Mars is about 0.006 atmospheres, the
>> atmospheric
>> > pressure on Mars would have had to have been 1000 times
>> greater than it is
>> > now. Not very likely. To have liquid water (enough for
>> flowing rivers) the
>> > pressure would have to be about 0.006 atmospheres at 0
>> degrees C. In fact,
>> > I think that this is how they originally defined the
>> mean surface of Mars.
>> > The only problem is that Mars is generally too cold at
>> this pressure for
>> > there to be liquid water, so you would need a warmer
>> Mars (by a about 60
>> > degrees centigrade for the "average" temperature) in
>> order to get water
>> > flowing on Mars. This is much more likely than a
>> 1000-fold increase in
>> > surface pressure.
>> >
>> > In fact, there is evidence for liquid water on Mars,
>> but not in great
>> > amounts (gullies, for example).
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>> >> Hi Steve,
>> >>
>> >> Liquid CO2 cannot exsist as a liquid at atmospheric
>> pressure. It must
>> >> be pressurized above 60.4 psi to remain as a
>> liquidso would it
>> >> have ever flowed on Mars at all? Solid CO2
>> evaporates to gas on Earth
>> >> and I would say it does the same on
>> Marssomebody correct me there
>> >> if I am wrong?
>> >>
>> >> Interesting thought about bog iron.we would
>> have hopes on Mars
>> >> which would be the reverse of our hopes on Earth.
>> Many pieces of bog
>> >> iron have got folks excited on Earth because they
>> were thought to be
>> >> meteorites but are meteorwrongs. On Mars we

Re: [meteorite-list] meteorites sold from Europe, not as described

[Martin Altmann]

Hi Mike and all,


it’s really always sad, to experience, what internet did to some, regarding
communication, couth and manners.
As told yesterday to you, as you are obviously not content with the
specimen, we offered you to send in back and to refund you.
Your temper and your readiness to doom and damn each and everyone in public,
as soon as an opportunity shows up, is legendary on that list here,
as the archives tell manifold and that behavior caused so many new
collectors to turn their backs on to their new hobby, when they read your
endless flame wars here on the list, because they had imagined meteorite
collecting more august than to witness brawls on the fish-market.

Here you can observe a difference about Andi’s and my notion of the
meteorite scene, we never took advantage in trying to badmouth you, when you
sold e.g. a “Bensour” of 85g to S.A. which landed with your label at M.V.,
who asked you again and you identified it without doubts as Bensour, but
after he cut it, it turned out to be H and rather a Bassikonou.

To the specimens.
They originally stem from an old private collection from Hungary. A
collection from pre-desert times.
As you might remember even from the times, when you were still peddling with
your little bag with your sales inventory from client to client,
in former times, the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s – the idea of
“pedigree”-collecting wasn’t born yet, the fascination emanating from the
specimens  themselves, the fact that they were meteorites, was for the
collectors overwhelming enough, so that they did not need the little
extra-boost of having a written note, from whom they had acquired them
(because they knew it anyway). Hence they were proud on the specimens as
they were now their specimens, so they wrote their own labels and threw
often the labels of the sellers/source away.
I don’t know how many specimens you acquired from private collections of
these times, but you will agree, that the majority of such specimens comes
without any label or they come with the label of the collector, and we at
least had dozens of cases, where the old original label was preserved, but
where the collector had cut off the part with the name of the dealer or the
museum.
Here with these two specimens of Estherville and Bondoc, it was a luck, that
the labels – why the collector enlarged and laminated once them we don’t
know, maybe for his collection filing box – gave the hint, where the
collector once had acquired them from. 
They were Huss specimens. And Huss at that time wasn’t the glorified
successor of Nininger, he was nothing else than a dealer for his
contemporaries, just like today, a Hupe, a Haiderer or a Cottingham for us.

If you take Bondoc, the specimen numbers are absolutely consistent with all
the numbers of the Huss-Bondocs offered by Geoff Notkin, or at Arnaud in the
Tricottet Collection or on Murray’s fine new collection site or those Peter
Marmet showed us.
Btw. none of these is listed in the both Huss-catalogues, none of these got
a number painted on the surface by Huss. 
(We would have expected you to know that, as U.S.-expert)

As told, we are convinced of the authenticity of the specimens, as well as
those esteemed list members, who had them already in their hands.
And as it is our policy, we offer always a return to our private buyers.
So thank you Anne, Jeff and Mike for your efforts, to keep the “Market”
clean, but we don’t see yet any reason for hysteria.
(Aside from the likeliness, that we after 33 years of meteorite collecting
and 10+ years meteorite dealing, would have nothing better to do,
than to forge Esthervilles and Bondocs and to fake a legend, to sell them at
those cheapest prices we did).

However, and there you most probably will agree,
we see no sense in a written theoretical discussion here on the list, but
like it the sober way.
You’ll bring the Estherville to Ensisheim, we got so many requests for that
very specimen and there are so many experts,
who will identify it as that, what it is, that we won’t be in no way
reluctant or shy to show the specimen to each and everyone,
who wants.
Therefore we will adjourn the further theatre, if you don’t mind, until 3
weeks.


Martin & Andi



__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized "meteorites"

[Jason Utas]

Hm.  I said as much when I saw the Bondoc label on facebook some days
ago.  My comment describing the issue with the label has since been
removed by Martin.

The labels are computer-printed (notice the bottom of every "g"
missing on the Bondoc label) and the font and underlining is wrong for
AML labels.  The pictured labels even use the typical European " , "
instead of a " . " when describing the weights of the specimens [
xxx,x grams ].  And then there's the glossy paper...

Painfully obvious fakes, probably made in Europe given the punctuation.

I wonder where they came from...and why my observations were not only
ignored, but erased.

Jason



www.fallsandfinds.com


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Michael Farmer  wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the piece sold as Estherville is not a meteorite as well. It 
> certainly does not match up with my other Estherville pieces.
> I would like to know where this material originated. The labels are fake, and 
> I am highly disappointed that this stuff has entered the market.
>
> Michael Farmer
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 31, 2013, at 9:24 PM, "Jeff Kuyken"  wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike, all,
>>
>> As an Aussie, I can say with 100% absolute certainty that this isn't
>> Murchison. It's not even close. In fact, I'm actually wondering it's a
>> meteorite at all as it looks more like some type of porphyritic rock. The
>> only meteorite I have seen that looks even remotely like this would be a CV3
>> dark inclusion. But the rectangular fragment on the back side doesn't bode
>> well for a chondritic meteorite either. It would be easier to tell
>> in-person.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com
>> [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael
>> Farmer
>> Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:52 PM
>> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Misabled/ poorly advertized "meteorites"
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>> I am sorry but this IS NOT Murchison, and the Estherville IS NOT
>> Estherville.
>> I emailed you regarding the Murchison and the fact that the photos clearly
>> show an NWA type old carbonaceous chondrite only minutes after you posted to
>> the list, and got no response.
>> Anyone who has ever laid eyes on Murchison knows that it does not have
>> desert varnish on the outside, nor white chondrules and CAI's on a CV3
>> matrix.
>> I feel sorry for whoever got burned on that one. You advertised the low
>> price, I guess it is low because it is not Murchison.
>>
>> anyone reading this, feel free to speak up and tell us how this "Murchison"
>> looks compared to real Murchison.
>> http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_004.JPG
>> http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_003.JPG
>> http://www.meteoritenhaus.de/img/Murchison_8_13_g_001.JPG
>>
>>
>> I bought the Estherville which you claim is from American Meteorite
>> Laboratory.
>> I assumed since you advertised and showed a label that it was real, I was
>> reading my email on an iphone while at the Laboratory in ASU, I showed the
>> photo of the "Murchison" to the people in the lab who just laughed.
>> My spider senses were not in order obviously because I went ahead and paid
>> for the Estherville. I received it today, and it is NOT Estherville, I am
>> pretty certain it is not a meteorite. The crust looks fake, or slaggy. I
>> have more than 50 pieces of Estherville all from British Museum and
>> Smithsonian, and this isn't close. Furthemore the lable is nothing more than
>> a printed piece of paper laminated.
>> I have the Nininger and Huss collections of meteorites books, and
>> Estherville under Nininger is #42, Huss is H230. Again, some homework on my
>> part would have caused me to not purchase this piece, but the price was good
>> and I thought it would sell fast (I bought it in seconds). It is a firm
>> reminder that something too cheap to be true, isn't!
>>
>> You piece has no number on the stone (
>> Nininger and Huss both would have matched the number on the label and
>> painted it on the stone).
>> And the AML number on the fake label is not matched up to their normal
>> numbers (yours is (2) 680.501. This is not a Nininger or Huss number
>>
>> You claim in your email (attached with this one below for all to read), that
>> these pieces have their "passports" IE American Meteorite Laboratory labels
>> as provenance, yet you deliver to me a fake printed laminated label done on
>> a computer.
>> Martin, this is NOT PROVENANCE, this is pretty much outright FRAUD!
>>
>> I know you have been doing meteorites for a while, and I know Murchison is
>> easily one of the easiest meteorites to identify, so I have to question what
>> is going on when such a false piece can pass the hands of such an
>> experienced seller?
>> This Estherville is not an Estherville, it is not a Nininger or Huss piece
>> as advertised, and I do not think it is even a meteorite.
>> I put in a request for refund via p

[meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day

[valparint]

Today's Meteorite Picture of the Day: NWA 7838 TS

Contributed by: Anthony Love

http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpod.asp
__

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list