[meteorite-list] Lots of Gold and Meteorites on Heritage Auctions

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:51:31 -0700
Message-ID: <5d297929-eaae-4c07-b8b1-4682d64ab1f5_at_centurylink.net>

Self-pairing is a slippery slope. Allowing laymen/dealers/Moroccans to
classify their own stones opens up the entire meteorite collectable
sector to fraud. One just needs to see the damage it created with
Martian meteorites a few years ago when collector confidence was at an
all-time low in regards to material from Mars.

Collectors deserve to know what they are getting and how much by weight
is really available. "Black Beauty" is an example of where, if the real
TKW where known, it would fetch only a fraction of its current price.
The recorded amount doesn't come close to how much is really available.

Unfair trade practices are at an all-time high when "dealers" fail to
report accurate weights and number of stones. Self-pairing,
piggybacking and bypassing all of the protections provided to collectors
by skipping established classification protocols places the entire
market in jeopardy.

Adam




On 11/3/2017 5:25 AM, Bigjohn Shea wrote:
> Sorta feels like we are rehashing an old topic in a new form here...
>
> It is common and even justifiable for people to be attached to the concept of formal pairings and classification for specimens, particularly when they pride themselves on selling specimens of a well known classification.
>
> However, like most items in the world of collectibles, who you buy from is just as important as what you are buying. If the source is reliable, then the "self-pairing", or "probable pairing" can obviously be trusted.
>
> Cheers,
> John A. Shea, MD
> IMCA 3295
>
>
>
>
> Sent using the mail.com mail app
>
> On 11/3/17 at 3:34 AM, Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list wrote:
>
>> How could it possibly be the main mass when it is claimed to be part of
>> the NWA 8455 "clan" which consists of 15 names under its many pairings?
>> The single NWA 8455 stone was reported to weigh 2,814 grams which would
>> make it the current "main mass" of this pairing group.
>>
>> This also doesn't explain why much more than 3 complete stones reported
>> under the La'gad pairing have been placed on the market. The TKW of this
>> pairing was supposed to be only 338 grams yet this amount has been
>> greatly exceeded.
>>
>> It appears unclassified (self-paired) stones have been placed on the
>> market using the La'gad nomenclature. There are many keeping track of
>> what is being offered.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/2017 12:40 AM, Robert Verish via Meteorite-list wrote:
>>> Thank you, Peter, for posting again (for a?2nd time)?the link to the MBD entry for the La'gad meteorite.
>>> It was a simple, but polite, way to point out that all of the questions that have been asked about this meteorite have their answers in that entry.
>>>
>>> It shouldn't be necessary, but now that the dust-up has settled,?I feel compelled to clear away any lingering?misconceptions:
>>> there is no question, this is the La'gad meteorite
>>> there is no question who the classifier is, nor what is?the classification
>>> there is no question who found this meteorite, or where?it was?found
>>> there is no question who owns this meteorite
>>> there is no question at all about the provenance of this meteorite
>>> there is no question that this is the main-mass of the La'gad meteorite.
>>>
>>> The stone in the auction weighs 171grams and has had a sample cut from it, other wise it would weigh 186.24grams. This matches the MBD entry.
>>> Having the stone called-out in the MBD and having it be the main-mass, and having the type-specimen be from that mass, is a premium for collectors.
>>> Having the coords recorded in the MBD and having a name (like La'gad)?and not a number?is a premium for collectors, as well.
>>>
>>> Taking everything into consideration, this?Lunar would be a positive addition to?any collection.
>>> Bob V.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> On ?Thursday?, ?November? ?02?, ?2017? ?06?:?18?:?45? ?PM, Peter Marmet via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Adam Hupe wrote via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>:
>>>> La'gad doesn't show up in the Meteoritical Bulletin. What institution or scientist examined this exact specimen or is it unofficial or self-paired?
>>>
>>> https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=63189
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Fri 03 Nov 2017 11:51:31 AM PDT