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

From: Bigjohn Shea <bigjohnshea_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 02:12:54 +0100
Message-ID: <trinity-74e407e5-0c18-4cd7-aec9-ebf615bf6170-1509757973974_at_msvc-mesg-gmxus001>

That's really sad, Adam...

How sad that after all your years of life and experience in the meteorite world, you failed to develop the skills you need to face a challenge from a peer with some dignity.



Sent using the mail.com mail app

On 11/3/17 at 7:49 PM, Jason Utas wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at centurylink.net>
> Date: Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Lots of Gold and Meteorites on Heritage
> Auctions
> To: Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> Jason,
>
> You are worthless and a waste of time. You have already been exposed and
> are a joke in academic circles.
>
> Go argue with the losers on Facebook.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/3/2017 12:45 PM, Jason Utas wrote:
>
> >I cleaned each individual and made sure the classifying scientist examined
> each and every one of them after a type specimen was submitted.
>
> Hold the phone. Someone simply *looked at* the stones to determine that
> they were paired!? You washed them, showed them to a third party, and
> they're paired? That's "self-pairing," by a third party.
>
> And it means that someone "qualified" can pair a meteorite to your
> standards, *just by looking at it.* That's good to know.
>
> What's the necessary degree? Geology? Or just analytical experience in
> general? You and I both know that classifying scientists tend to be
> *worse* than experienced collectors or dealers at determining what a rock
> is, just by looking at it. They don't usually see whole rocks. They need
> a thin section and probe data before rendering a verdict. Fe/Mn ratios.
> Oxygen isotopes.
>
> John's completely right. You're just using *other* purely subjective
> criteria to determine who's qualified to pair meteorites by looking at
> them. But those criteria don't make any sense. Most experienced dealers
> and collectors have seen more rare meteorites in hand sample than the
> average analytical scientist.
>
>
> And I'll mention again the mislabeled NWA 978 and "Tafrawet" we purchased
> directly from you, years ago [actually NWA 753 and a new IAB, NWA 3200].
>
> Let me repeat myself. You sold me this new iron meteorite
> <https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/?code=33524> as a new mass of this one
> <https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=17885> because you
> screwed up a self-pairing.
>
> Honestly, the NWA 3200 should be enough to get you to put a pin in this.
> You sliced the iron and sold it on ebay in separate auctions. We already
> had a piece of Tafrawet: I noticed that the pattern and inclusions were
> *completely* different. We purchased all of the remaining slices, but you
> had already sold some via buy-it-now, as Tafrawet. After giving a slice to
> UCLA -- yep, it was a new IAB, not even a IIIAB. We tried to contact the
> other eBay buyers when it was all sorted out, but weren't able to reach all
> of them. Oops. Mislabeled material in circulation. Must have been
> someone else's fault.
>
> Peter mistakenly bought the *NWA 753* because we had a large fragment of
> it. He wanted a slice to go with it. He trusted your label. Oops. Wrong
> meteorite.
>
> Heck, it's not like they look *remotely* similar. Here's a slice of NWA 753
> <http://www.meteoriteguy.com/sale-pics/nwa7532.jpg.JPG> and one of NWA 978
> <http://www.meteoriteguy.com/sale-pics/nwa9783.JPG>. Those photos are from
> Mike Farmer's website. A reputable dealer *who can tell the difference.*
> Maybe you just wanted to sell the more common R-chondrite as one with a
> smaller TKW? I don't know. And, at the end of the day, it doesn't
> matter.
>
> That's just two examples in our cabinets.
>
> You were just as guilty as any other dealer for a decade or so. NWA 753,
> NWA 801, NWA 2969, etc., etc., etc. You self-paired hundreds (thousands?)
> of ordinary chondrites, carbonaceous chondrites, irons, and achondrites.
> And I wouldn't be calling you out on this if you weren't being such a prick
> about it to everyone else.
>
> I guess it's pretty easy to point fingers at new meteorites when you only
> have one stone left to sell. And I doubt you paid less than the
> $10-15/gram the new Lunars are fetching. That must be rough. I can
> understand where you're coming from, but you're not going to get much
> sympathy if you carry on like this.
>
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list <
> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>
> > I reported every single stone in the NWA 1110 Martian pairing which
> > amounted to several dozen. I cleaned each individual and made sure the
> > classifying scientist examined each and every one of them after a type
> > specimen was submitted. Then an image was taken of the entire lot and
> > submitted to the Nomenclature Committee. I generally avoid pairings since
> > they are so troublesome and are piggy-backed constantly. Over ten lazy
> > dealers self-paired to NWA 1110 which was an official pairing in itself. Do
> > you think this is fair to honest dealers who do all the heavy lifting and
> > follow the rules?
> >
> > Image of entire NWA 1110 lot:
> > https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/get_original_photo.php?recno=5631053
> >
> > Bulletin entry:
> > https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=NWA+1110&sfo
> > r=names&ants=&falls=&valids=&stype=contains&lrec=50&map=ge&
> > browse=&country=All&srt=name&categ=All&mblist=All&rect=&
> > phot=&snew=0&pnt=Normal%20table&code=17124
> >
> > Remember, that a so-called meteorite "dealer" went to jail for
> > piggy-backing and self-classification of stones which turned out to be
> > terrestrial. Now that he is out, he is filling out whistle blower forms
> > with the IRS on meteorite dealers in the United States in hopes of
> > collecting a 15% reward.
> >
> > Stones that are are self-paired carry a lot of risk,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/3/2017 10:16 AM, Bigjohn Shea wrote:
> >
> >> "Self-pairing is a slippery slope. Allowing laymen/dealers/Moroccans to
> >> classify their own stones opens up the entire meteorite collectable sector
> >> to fraud."
> >>
> >> Hence my condition that the seller needs to be "reliable". A subjective
> >> term, yes, but it is impossible to formally pair every stone. If that were
> >> the expectation from collectors then very little material would change
> >> hands... Also, that is the slippery slope we live on. The only slope we
> >> live on. More on this below...
> >>
> >> "Collectors deserve to know what they are getting and how much by weight
> >> is really available."
> >>
> >> Black Beauty sells high because it's an interesting classification, not
> >> because of low TKW... Low TKW alone is not a great motivating factor for
> >> collectors.
> >>
> >> "Unfair trade practices are at an all-time high when "dealers" fail to
> >> report accurate weights and number of stones."
> >>
> >> Report to who? Report by who? I can't call up the MetSoc and say, "Hey I
> >> found ten more pieces of BB. Add these 80g to the TKW." It doesn't work
> >> that way. Not every specimen can come in form of an 11.53kg single mass
> >> with no pairings... ;-) If I want to formally pair ten pieces as paired to
> >> the original BB, all ten of them need to be studied, and have a
> >> classification written for them. What if 9 of them weigh less than 4g?
> >> Who's going to sacrifice 20% plus another 1g for a thin section plus cut
> >> loss of those 9 specimens weighing less than 4g that they paid 500$/g to a
> >> Moroccan merchant? Apply that same logic to every other DCA worldwide and
> >> you'll need a workforce of scientists that cannot exist, all trained to
> >> handle the load of pairings.
> >>
> >> We don't live in the reality where every piece of meteorite that should
> >> be formally paired can actually get formally paired, and I doubt we ever
> >> did or ever will. We live in the reality where buyers and dealers are
> >> responsible for deciding whether or not they are really buying BB (or any
> >> other specific classification) when they are buying a specimen that hasn't
> >> been formally paired. If they can't do that, then they should only buy from
> >> people who they consider trustworthy.
> >>
> >> Stepping off my soapbox...
> >>
> >> Have a good one.
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent using the mail.com mail app
> >>
> >> On 11/3/17 at 10:51 AM, Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>> 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 09:12:54 PM PDT