AW: [meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed PairingsIssues(SPPI)

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat May 6 06:33:56 2006
Message-ID: <00dd01c670f8$91756cb0$4f41fea9_at_name86d88d87e2>

That Baygorra-scam, - no Rob, I'm thinking not about you, but mainly about a
Russian ebay clown,
was extremely harmful. Now whenever a IAB from Southamerica in a little
large quantity will appear, it will be suspected to be Campo.
I have to experience this, when I'm selling the Brazilian Uruacu iron for
the poor finder. Although the pieces are all recorded, the strewnfield is
known and in situ pics do exist, I can sell it only at ridiculous prices.
People think it might be Campo, like it was with most of those Baygorrias,
Additionally Wasson wrote that Uruacu would be undistinguishable from Campo,
but I suppose he had only a little sample,
as Uruacu is macroscopically very distinct from Campo, whenver a piece was
cut, it explodes from cohenite, scattered in wormshaped inclusions through
and through. To find so much cohenite in a Campo, one has to cut a lot of
specimens.

Well and that's a pity. With the NWAs the danger with self-claimed
identifications is much larger than with meteorites with names,
and so I think, that the not so experienced collectors at least, should be
sensitized about that problem.
In respect thereof, Adam's statement is more than legitimate.

Clown Martin.


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Rob
Wesel
Gesendet: Samstag, 6. Mai 2006 11:22
An: Adam Hupe
Cc: Meteorite List
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed
PairingsIssues(SPPI)

Dr. Irving has earned a Ph.D. and the Nom Com votes on his submissions. I
think these qualifications speak for themselves as far as qualifying rocks

In a lab, I have no doubt. But in the field, wasn't the majority of the
money for that trip spent on a rock that turned out to be a brick from a
kiln? So perhaps cutting parties and field pairings won't count, OK

Every stone from NWA 2999 had a piece removed, thin-sections made and were
all studied. Every multiple stone classification sharing the same
nomenclature was voted on and approved.

You have already publicly admitted that NWA 1110 was visually paired by a
scientist and not every piece was tested. So maybe you tested NWA 2999 ad
nauseam, dwindling resources for non commercial actual science and raising
the price to collectors, but that didn't apply to getting your Martian out
in a hurry before hundreds more were found.

Since when has NWA 1877 ever sold for a thousand a gram?

I don't recall saying it did

I see you stole information from an AGU copyrighted abstract, posted it on
your site and gave credit to NASA for it.

While stole is a bit strong, you have me there and I will look to correct
it. I pulled the NWA 3133 abstract off the NASA Abstract page and failed to
include the source. Now that I did have classified, by the same guy that did

yours. I can't win with you. You just don't like competition do you?

Are you still dealing Campo as something else?

Please refer the IMCA's official stamen on Baygorria, you are a member
aren't you?

This all boils down to me not conforming to your rules and has nothing to do

with NomCom, MetSoc or IMCA. I can offer material I feel is likely to be
paired as such. In some cases I feel the need to classify and in others I
don't. I am not comparing the subtleties of various H chondrites that look
like every other H chondrite, this olivine diogenite is pretty distinct.
With NWA 2651 which IS paired to NWA 3133 I felt I couldn't make the call so

I had it classified. Let the collectors decide, they know who they are
dealing with and the safety that I will guarantee their satisfaction. The
IMCA says I will follow MetSoc naming/pairing rules. If you find me saying
this olivine diogenite IS paired with NWA 1877 then I will be in violation.
I have classified NWA 1877 material on my website, it's $50 per gram and
anyone is welcome to buy it if they feel safer. My NWA 1929 has a similar
pricing for those classified and likely paired
http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com/catalog/nwa1929.htm . So to accuse me of
any dishonesty is ridiculous and an obvious ploy to detract sales. You went
from talking about classification to accusing me of lying. You have simply
been outmaneuvered on this one, I found a way to sell it faster than you and

make customers (including MetSoc and IMCA members) happy. You make more
money and sell more stones than me, be happy with that.

Stop throwing mud, you are losing ground. Haven't seen much public rally to
your cause.

We can continue this off list, the archives are full of this repetitious
argument.

Rob Wesel
http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com
------------------
We are the music makers...
and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
Willy Wonka, 1971



----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:57 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings
Issues(SPPI)


> Rob,
>
> Since you felt it necessary to step up, claim guilt and show disrespect
> for
> a leader in Meteoritics, I felt I had better respond publicly.
>
> Dr. Irving has earned a Ph.D. and the Nom Com votes on his submissions. I
> think these qualifications speak for themselves as far as qualifying
> rocks.
> Of course, the stones were brought back and analyzed properly, something
> that you failed to do and then made up excuses for. I recently sent in 5
> different type samples for the same type of meteorite because the
> variances
> made it unclear to me that they were part of the same event even though I
> have seen thousands of meteorites. Every stone from NWA 2999 had a piece
> removed, thin-sections made and were all studied. Every multiple stone
> classification sharing the same nomenclature was voted on and approved.
> The
> Nom Com has made provisions for multiple stone entries. One only has to
> read their submission forms to see this has been taken into consideration.
>
> If the Nom Com accepts classifications from Cascadia, then I suggest
> having
> your material examined there as they would be more qualified then yourself
> at making pairing judgements. Borrowing numbers and data to make stones
> look like official meteorites is in poor taste and demonstrates a lack of
> morals as far as I am concerned.
>
> Since when has NWA 1877 ever sold for a thousand a gram? You may be
> confusing it with NWA 1459 which is not paired, was the first Olivine
> Diogenite in private hands and weighed less than a hundred grams. I see
> you
> stole information from an AGU copyrighted abstract, posted it on your site
> and gave credit to NASA for it. Are you still dealing Campo as something
> else? Get your facts straight before pointing you finger at others.
>
>
> Adam
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Wesel" <nakhladog_at_comcast.net>
> To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>;
> <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:20 PM
> Subject: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)
>
>
>> Perhaps the term should be "Officially Sorted By A Scientist Over A Few
>> Beers" or "OSBASOAFB's"
>>
>> Just what could Dr Irving do in the field that I can't do in my office.
> Did
>> he have his field SEM with him, his field ion microprobe, his field
>> polarascope? Or was he a fish out of water without his lab relying on you
> to
>> tell him what was and wasn't a meteorite?
>>
>> And the MetSoc has no position on selling meteorites yet, though members
>> have been buying this material.
>>
>> Jeff Grossman's own unedited words (he is the NomCom chair Adam if you
> are
>> not familiar with his work):
>>
>> "On the question of pairing... for most meteorites, pairing studies are
>> of
>> little scientific interest and not worth taking the time to do. Visual
>> pairings are almost worthless. For the important meteorites, pairings get
>> worked out in the scientific literature over time. This may be
>> unsettling
>> for some dealers, but that's the way it is."
>>
>> So apply that to your "cutting parties" and the serious pairing work that
>> goes on Adam.
>>
>> I could take these down to Cascadia tomorrow and say "whaddya think" and
> it
>> would be no less official than yours.
>>
>> and finally from Dr Grossman:
>>
>> " It is acceptable and routine, however, for people to make statements
>> indicating that various numbered stones may be paired (although I would
>> be
>> cautious about believing such statements unless they appear in the
> Bulletin
>> or other scientific publications)."
>>
>> So don't proclaim IMCA standards as MetSoc/NomCom standards to me.
>>
>> Enough was said earlier, you had to open it again.
>>
>> And you bring up number borrowing, I paid for 20% of the cost to get NWA
>> 1877 classified so it is just as much mine as yours.
>>
>> Cheap, lazy, thieving, Clown...out :0)
>>
>> Rob Wesel
>> http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com
>> ------------------
>> We are the music makers...
>> and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
>> Willy Wonka, 1971
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
>> To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
>> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 7:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)
>>
>>
>> > The excuse that I have 3,000 pieces of what looks like the same stone
>> > won't
>> > fly. As I stated before, every piece of NWA 1110 was examined by a Nom
>> > Com
>> > approved scientist. NWA 3118, which consisted of thousands of pieces
> was
>> > thoroughly gone through by Dr. Irving in the field, in Morocco. Dr.
> Bunch
>> > literally went through over 2,000 lbs. of my material in Denver taking
>> > three
>> > days to do so. Scientists help me to sort material at cutting parties.
>> > For
>> > the most part, they seem more than willing to go through large batches
> of
>> > material. I have a new find consisting of several thousand pieces that
>> > with
>> > the help of Dr. Irving were sorted out and classified. Which would you
>> > rather have, a self proclaimed pairing or pieces that have been
>> > examined
>> > by
>> > a competant scientist?
>> >
>> > I am not trying to police any market, just stating that the standards
> set
>> > by
>> > the I.M.C.A. and the Meteoritical Society serve a very important
> purpose.
>> > Every other industry seems to have standards in place, why not
> meteorites?
>> > If you agree to be a member of the I.M.C.A. you also agree to the
>> > standards
>> > set forth by the Meteoritical Society. A dealer who operates without
>> > standards is nothing more than a clown as far as I am concerned.
>> >
>> > Enough Said,
>> >
>> > Adam
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________
>> > Meteorite-list mailing list
>> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>


______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sat 06 May 2006 06:33:49 AM PDT


Help support this free mailing list:



StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo MyWeb