[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Misleading statements and the responsibility of Meteorite dealers.
Dear Frank,
I include the message below you wrote in the meteorite newsleter
as reference.
First & formost, I want to make it clear I am not resentful, as
you implied some might be. (some might - but they are being, primarily,
at least, defensive) Niether do I agree with EVERYTHING you had to say -
I DO agree with much of it.
I am probably one of the worst "offenders" to whom you referred. I
certainly reported the Allende/Phobos connection & the recent Ibitira
flap was in reaction to my passing on information given to me. (I did,
however, state only what was being said - made no claimes as to accuracy
- hopefully, I learned a lesson there, too)
I also feel that the vast majority of dealers are never intentionally
missleading. In fact, they are rather exceptional characters.
As for myself, I do get carried away in my own excitement. When I
get jazzed about something - I say so & I say why. One of the things I
get most excited about are meteorites in general, &, on occasion,
specific meteorites. This is, SOMETIMES (but far from "always"), based
on incomplete (or even erronious) information I have recieved. HOWEVER,
it is COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE to expect meteorite dealers to be experts
in intersolar geology - Frank, just look at the people who are the
"experts" - if they don't personally have a ram rod up their rear end,
they are certainly intimidated by their "colleagues" ripping them to
pieces should they do anything so profane as to sell on the market the
material they are studying. (in this case, meteorites) Nininger,
himself, was subjected to the most severe of critisism for doing just
that - never mind he had increased the supply of finds in the U.S. by
300% and conducted significant research & published numerous books &
articles on the subject.
That does not, however, in any way negate your argument that
dealers would be well advised to take an introductory course in geology.
(Do bare in mind, however, that some of us do NOT have the same
skills/mental "wiring" as others. Some of us may be literal geniuses in
some fields & learning impared in others)
In regard to cost, meteorites, as with ANY market item, are priced
according to SUPPLY & DEMAND - there are some very simple factors
involved: how much did it cost the dealer? - how much will it cost him
to replace it? - how much will people pay for it? Any dealer who does
not bare these 3 simple factors in mind will not be selling many
specimens-or, at least, he won't be selling them for long- there is
tremendous competition involved. It is a classic case of capitalism - if
someone sells it at a lower price, he will sell BY FAR more material -
if he sells it too "cheep", he will not regain his capital & cannot
replenish his "stock" & will be out of business. And just exactly where
do you think all this material comes from? While I cannot go into detail
here, I can assure you that the dealers are NOT the ones who IMMEDIATELY
pushed the prices through the celing on SNCs when NASA made its
anouncement. SOURCES froze - absolutely - demand INCREASED - only a mad
man would sell a widgit for a dollar if it will cost him 10 dollars (or
even 100) to replace it. I could go on & on & I will spare you - suffice
it to say that 1) it is a VERY competitive "market", (which keeps prices
DOWN) and 2) the demand continues to increase faster than the supply
(which forces prices UP).
(if anyone is interested in what influences pricing in metorites,
they can read a very expanded version of my "Meteorites as Investment"
article in the 1st Voyage! - due to come out in the June-July 1st
issue)
I would like to take you up on your offer to provide info if asked:
Specifically, (for now) the Allende/Phobos connection. This was passed
on to me by THE most sophisticated & knowledgable collector I know. How
was he mistaken? Is there a specific paper or article that was later
proven to be in error? He was quite adimate no other body in the solar
system was close to matching the "refractometer" readings of Allende &
that Phobos was a perfect match.
As always, your comments would be appreciated.
Best wishes, Michael
PS: Your lack of cynicism and/or hostility is much appreciated.
fes@uwyo.edu wrote:
>
> I am troubled by what I am reading in dealer catalogs, listings,
> and webpages. I see a lot of inaccuracies, and half truths in
> descriptions of meteorites. This is a touchy subject, but one that needs
> to be addressed.
> I recently read a short bullet on an H3 chondrite that has
> carbonaceous clasts in it. By this fact the dealer felt it was warranted
> to raise the price by almost 200%. It was implied by the bullet that this
> was a unique property, and one that was hard to come by.
> The fact is that ALL ordinary chondrites contain some form of
> carbonaceous clasts, and some even contain amino acids. Is this an
> attempt to mislead, or is it a genuine lack of knowledge of meteorite
> properties? I do not doubt the dealer in his abilitites to provide a good
> product, I do doubt however his wordings of his bullets to justify the
> high price.
> The Martian meteorite fiasco is still a bitter pill to be
> swallowed by all collectors.ALH84001is not related to the true SNC's by
> any way that would justify the outrageous prices asked by people. You
> see, the main group SNC's are all crustal rocks, formed at some depth in
> the Martian crust. These never experienced water alteration, and their
> formation temperature is too high to harbor life. ALH84001 is a surface
> rock that experienced low temperature water alteration, that may have
> been a catalyst to the presence of microscopic organisims. This
> experience is unique, and never been experienced by Zagami, Shergotty,
> Nahkla, and Chassigny.
> Where then do dealers feel they have the right to hike the prices up?
> I understand alot of people wanted a piece of Mars after the
> announcement in Aug., but instead of drastic price increase, maybe the
> better course would have been to curb selling, and only allow a certain
> amount maximum to purchase by each person. The profit took a scientific
> discovery, and made a mockery out of it. The use of possible life on Mars
> to sell material at inflated prices is unethical, and detrimental to all
> involved.
> I have also seen carbonaceous chondrites marketed with nomers
> such as "oldest material known",and "Oldest material in the Universe!".
> Where these statements arise from I do not know, but they mislead the
> public. No one can say this is the oldest material in the Universe,
> because quite frankly it's not. They are the oldest substance in our Solar
> System, but we do not know what lies in interstellar space.
> Also The Mars moon Phobos, and Allende connection is wrong. It seems
> that remote sensing data indicate a correlation, but nothing definative.
> By virtue of oxygen isotopes, Allende had to form at the outer edge of
> the asteroid belt, at the very least. The researcher needs to explain how
> an asteroid can migrate through the belt, and stop in a parking orbit
> around Mars. Until this acheived, it is speculation at most, and to
> relay that to the public is not correct information.
> Howardites are coveted meteorites, because of their appearence,
> and rarity. They however are not so special as dealers would have you
> believe. They are regolith(soil) from an asteroid, just as most
> breciated, and xenolithic chondrites. In fact, almost all chondrites are
> regoliths of some kind. What is so unique about howardites to ask
> 700.00-1200.00 per gram for them, and only 3.00 for Dimmit,a classic
> regolith breccia. I understand that less material dictates higher prices,
> but howardites are overpriced, by virtue of their supposed uniqueness.
> Dealers need to tone down the glitter, and stick to the science.
> Science gave them their business, and they now tend to pervert the truth.
> I am not implying that all dealers are doing this on purpose, I am saying
> that most do not, so it seems, want to investigate a meteorite to the
> point of understanding.
> This however is not the fault of the dealer, as science
> does little to help explain what is exactly being stated in the
> research, and literature. How can those not schooled in petrology, and
> geochemistry understand what truly is happening?
> I offer the following suggestion: Take a class in physical
> geology. These can be taken at night, at most community colleges, and
> could even be taken pass/fail so that those who do not have time to do
> home work can still learn something. Understanding what is being bought
> and sold in this market is an imperative. To understand minerals, and
> rocks should be a requirement to deal in meteorites, as that is what they
> are made of.
> I cannot, however, expect people to listen to me, as perhaps they
> were already turned off by the above statements. I do not hold any one
> person to blame, as I cannot make such a judgement. I can say that what I
> see is alot of times just, frankly, not true. All I can really say is
> this: Dealers should keep abreast of the meteorites they deal, and make an
> effort to portray only true, and accurate information. Speculation has no
> place in science, and it should have no place in collecting of
> meteorites.
> I am aware that I may have hurt some feelings, and created a
> disdain for my name, but what is right, is right. My intention is not to
> point fingers, or push blame on a single dealer, or dealers. I see things
> that are not right, and should be corrected.
> I now, as I always have, offer my assistance to anyone wanting
> to know more about meteorites. All I need is to be asked, and I will be
> glad to help those interested anyway I can.
>
> Frank Stroik
Follow-Ups:
References: