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

From: Walter Branch <waltbranch_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat May 6 09:41:31 2006
Message-ID: <007e01c67112$be8efdf0$6101a8c0_at_BranchFamily>

>My NWA 1929 has a similar pricing for those classified and likely paired
>http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com/catalog/nwa1929.htm .

I have been doing some research on NWA 1929 / NWA 2690 and it is really
confusing to me. On Feb. 17, 2004 Adam reported a new Howardite that is
paired with NWA 1929, yet according to the online Met Bulletin database, NWA
2690 is a Eucrite that is listed as paired with NWA 1929.

The online database lists NWA 2690 as a Eucrite
and NWA 1929 as a Howardite
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php

...but it lists the two as being paired

The online database at NAU lists NWA 1929 as a Howardite:
http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Howardite.html

But NWA 2690 is not listed under Eucrites or Howardites.

Maybe this is due to different labs studying the same material but how is a
pairing statement made?

Perhaps MetBull 90 will clarify this but does anyone know anymore about this
NWA 1929/2690 paring?

-Walter Branch



________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Wesel" <nakhladog_at_comcast.net>
To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
Cc: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 5:21 AM
Subject: 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 09:41:14 AM PDT