[meteorite-list] Help with Ebay bidding

From: Michael Blood <mlblood_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:13:27 -0800
Message-ID: <C99B3337.17600%mlblood_at_cox.net>

Jason,
        Of course you are right - it is a matter of taste.
        As for a dealer "withholding" weight, that is not
Reasonable - unless he doesn't want to open the
Membrane box, or risk breakage or whatever. People
Should just buy what they want and some want
Weight and some want surface area.
        No question, given say a 30mm X 30mm all else
Being equal (price and appearance) I would take the
Thicker one - but if the thicker one is 3 times the $,
Then I would always take the thinner one - but that
Is just me.
        Michael


On 3/7/11 9:24 PM, "Jason Utas" <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello All,
> I'd like to point out a few things.
>
> First and foremost is that we are meteorite collectors. Collectors.
> What does that mean? It means that for some irrational reason, we
> have all decided that it is a worthwhile endeavor to spend our
> hard-earned money on chunks of rock that happen to be a little
> different than the more easily available ones that have originated on
> earth. We buy them because we consider them to be 'interesting' or
> 'pretty,' and that's about it.
>
> So when I hear collectors saying that they want to buy the thinnest
> slice possible of a given meteorite, it makes me want to stand back
> and ask...why? Such a comment does make a lot of sense. Since rarer
> types of meteorites are often very expensive (and are priced per
> gram), a thinner piece would logically be more easy to see -- if
> seeing the specimen were an issue.
>
> But, personally, from a collector's (my) point of view, I'd have to
> disagree. If I wanted a piece of a given meteorite, I'd gladly pay
> twice as much for the thick slab or endcut that weighed twice as much
> as a mm-thick slice of greater surface area.
>
> Why is that? It's because if I want a given meteorite, I don't just
> want a piece that feels like a cross between a baseball card and a
> credit card. I'd prefer a piece that has some heft to it.
> Perhaps that's not such a reasonable demand when one is talking about
> a lunar or a martian meteorite -- but there's a reason why Peter and I
> personally haven't bought very many of those. The few that we have
> purchased have been smaller complete individuals, and we prefer them
> to slices of equivalent weights.
>
> And since I'm a collector, and I prefer such pieces, those are the
> "better" ones. In my opinion. You guys should stop trying to push
> your wants on other people as common sense, because, if you prefer
> thin slices, that's your preference -- not mine. And neither one is
> "better." Your desire is rational in one sense - if you're willing to
> spend only enough to buy a gram or so of the moon, then yes, I can see
> why you would prefer a wafer with a larger surface area. And I prefer
> specimens that have some weight and heft -- meteorites that I can see
> *and* feel.
>
> And there's much more to my rationale than just that. Stability,
> difficulty of preservation, and the fact that the prices for such
> specimens *are* significantly inflated in general all make these less
> desirable to me. That and the fact that I wouldn't feel comfortable
> with ever taking them out of a membrane box because I'd fear for the
> samples' safety.
>
> But, yes. I see where you're coming from. If visibility is your only
> criteria, then a thinner slice would logically appeal more to you. I
> personally don't find that attractive.
>
> So, when I emailed the ebay seller that led to this thread and asked
> for specimen weights several months ago -- and they crassly declined
> -- I opted not to purchase any of their specimens. Can I understand
> their supposed rationale for preferring thin slices with large surface
> areas? Sure. But they, as the seller, are obliged to give potential
> buyers the information they want about the material they're selling.
>
> Let's compare it to buying a house. You are looking at properties and
> are told by a seller that you can see some photos of their building,
> but they won't let you actually go inside it or know how many bedrooms
> or bathrooms it has before you buy it. The price seems fair based on
> what you know of the market, and can see from the photos. The seller
> assures you that nothing is wrong with the house.
> Wouldn't you think it strange? The details they are withholding are a
> good guideline for how houses are generally priced. Wouldn't you
> think that the house *might* be flawed in some way that the seller
> didn't want you to know? Furthermore, would you be willing to risk
> spending your money on such a deal?
>
> Meteorites are currently (generally) sold by the gram. That system
> makes sense because weight is an easily quantifiable unit. If people
> start selling slices by the square centimeter, unless they have some
> nifty computer programs and a scanner handy, they're not going to be
> able to judge area as accurately -- and furthermore, people wouldn't
> know how 'big' the pieces they were buying actually were. Weight
> tells you how much you're getting, regardless of shape. Area doesn't.
> Photographs can help to take care of that problem, but when slices
> are mm-thin...Richard Montgomery noted that, for the specimens he
> purchased, "their weights...were far more expensive than usual."
>
> So I was probably right in assuming that the information that the
> seller wanted to hide -- the specimens' weights -- would likely have
> deterred me from buying them. If you read the description, you'll
> note that the seller isn't selling collection pieces that they've
> purchased as-is and are now selling. He/she is doing the cutting
> personally. Do you honestly think that they personally prefer thin
> slices? Well, since they're removing these thin slices from
> collection pieces, I assume that they actually own endcuts with quite
> a bit of heft, and are thinning them to make some money. *Maybe*
> they're just saying that ridiculous stuff about not telling people
> specimen weights so that they can sell their paper-thin slices at
> inflated prices. Makes sense.
>
> I agree that thin slices should sell for a slight premium because a
> thinner slice means that the buyer is getting more area for their
> money given the weight of the slice (*relevant only if buyers actually
> prefer thinner slices). But that price hike has to make sense with
> regard to existing average prices per gram for larger specimens,
> because at some point the thin slice will cost as much as a thick
> slice of the same area, and at that point there's simply no reason to
> purchase the thinner slice.
>
> Even if you prefer a thin slice, you've still got to admit the fact
> that meteorites are currently sold by weight. Changing the current
> selling paradigm isn't going to happen for practical reasons. I agree
> that aesthetics should have a large bearing on price, but....they
> already do. Pretty pieces sell for more, and thinner slices are often
> priced higher per unit weight than are thicker slices, due to demand a
> higher demand for 'cheaper surface area.'
>
> This seller's not saying anything new. They're just getting people to
> pay more by withholding information. It's apparently a good gimmick
> (and legal, to boot). And if you want to pay more per gram for a
> wafer-thin slice of a given meteorite than you would normally consider
> paying, then it's a good deal for you.
>
> I'll refrain. I prefer meteorites with mass, and not just area. 3D
> is where it's at. For me, though: maybe not you.
>
> Regards,
> Jason

--
"Teachin' a pig to dance is a waste of time and it irritates the pig"
Mark Twain
--
1. Whenever you're wrong, admit it,
2. Whenever you're right, shut up.
Shaquille O'Neal

Received on Tue 08 Mar 2011 04:13:27 AM PST