[meteorite-list] NWA 1110 issues

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

Have I missed something here?  I find a rock here in Mexico 
which I suspect to be a meteorite, and the same Bob looks at 
the image I posted and says it is probably paired with the 
rocks on Lake Michigan in his back yard, and just because I 
felt like slapping him upside the head for his comment doesn't 
mean he was wrong.

This reminds me of a meteorite (I forgot which one, anyone 
remember?) that a guy found I think jogging down the road, on 
the asphalt, which he knew wasn't there the prior day when his 
did his routine.  It might have still been cold.  So the 
NomCom only called it a find, because the Mafia could have 
thrown it there.  Never mind that it was just a little bit 
fresher than Allende which is still being found and passed off 
as a fall now, 35 years later.  All else being equal which 
piece would you want?  Which piece would be more precious to 
you?

Why wouldn't the material being advertised be called NWA 1068, 
the "type" specimen on the JSC curation page?  Or alternately 
being advertised as "Probably NWA 1110" or "probably paired 
with NWA 1110"?  Or as all of the above?  That's apparently 
the lab opinions, according to the Curation page, Bob, and was 
it Greg or Adam.  Or at minimum, Or NWA 1068/1110, to avoid 
any inadvertant deception, if there is any chance of that?

Or send Dr. Irving and colleague an email asking if NWA 1110 
and NWA 1068 (or whichever group is Bob's) are ok to use 
interchangeably, i.e., synonyms, and another to the NomCom.  
If one says yes, Bob is right, and Adam can be silenced 
(except maybe thinking Bob deserves a slap upside the head).  
If both say no, insert "probably" in the description of the 
material being sold and Voilá, Bob is clear.

Somebody looked at Bob's rock, right, and they considered this 
Martian, paired, and it wasn't with the Hupe's 
(pronounced "Who pay", with the accent on the second syllable) 
bunch, what is it's story?  It didn't just magically appear in 
eSouk? Just because most of us don't give a crap about the 
sale and have other agendas, doesn't mean that a genuine buyer 
for the piece shouldn't be privy (and have a right) to this 
information.  Why it is being called NWA 1110 is a basic right 
for a buyer.  But once (s)he knows, end of story.

On the Hupes perspective, and in attention to Mark B's 
comments, I would suggest a separate point is being argued, 
Mark, and that you are right about it, but it is not the main 
point of argument here, which has been lost due to the 
personalities involved, now including your frustration with 
them.  Maybe you guys can reconcile with logic along the 
following lines:  Science is one thing, Commerce is another.  
Scientists can do commerce, and businessmen science.  But pure 
science is a labor and investment of love, and it is nice to 
be renumerated, but that is not part of the rules.  Meteorites 
are not copyritable, at least I hope they are not.  118g 
copyright is strictly a business issue.  There are no 
royalties in meteorites.  A scientist can fight with another 
scientist and it will be resolved by the scientific method, 
and a businessman with another businessman will be resolved by 
the Darwinian survival, but a determined businessman will 
always rape a scientist, and the scientist will live longer if 
he sits backs and understands that or the government 
intervenes (IMCA?).  

Yes, if IMCA is serious about its role and single mission 
of "Authenticity" it must take a clear position in this 
dispute, resolving it unambiguously.  Anything else is a 
failure in its mission and a bowing to select commercial 
interests.  This is not a criticsm, it is a chance to earn 
respect and prove the organization is really "working" in the 
interest's of collectors, and the definition of authenticity, 
and not just being spineless.  Is the IMCA label on the 
auction, I didn't check.  The opinions are out, it is IMCA's 
move.  Can it step up to the plate?  I ask you to.  Frankly, I 
don't care which side wins, I just want to know about 
authenticity.  Is this permitted or not, is it authentic or 
not?

While the poor NomCom didn't cause this NWA mess (commerce 
did), NomCom is an authority here, and if too much problems 
are caused, I will recommend that they drop the whole business 
of naming dubious locality sourced meteorites and force 
everyone to do their own science, where my guess is the Hupes 
will really come out succe$$ully.  So it would be a good idea 
to take NomCom's lead here on exactly what to call these 
unless you already have an up and running certified 
petrological classification lab set up in the garage.

I don't have a clue whether Bob chose the NWA 1110 label 
because it has the lowest TKW nor do I know whether the Hupes 
are using the NomCom to develop brand equity (I.e. brand their 
meteorites).  I wouldn't think either to be true, not that the 
thought never crossed all of our virgin minds.  But I would 
very much like to see an article in "Meteorite Market Trends" 
on this subject of Branding NWA materials, NomCom, and Playing 
by the Rules or Exploiting them, since the author this month 
mentioned that the market isn't doing much, and has to fill 
space on a monthly basis.  Like Martin says, TKW from a 
scientific point of view is not very interesting, which makes 
a huge part of this discussion non-scientific and purely that 
of a commercial trade dispute.

On one hand we have people screaming at each other to not 
offer buyers material from the same meteorite when someone 
else is offering it on the list because this is "ethical" and 
morally right, and on the other hand we have people paying 
for/donating meteorites for study (and for this the Hupes have 
my eternal goodwill), and then having "freeloaders" 
appropriate ambiguously their efforts to make a sale.  Good 
Grief, maybe Mr. Blood is right, in that it is hard to imagine 
any agreement here on anything, not even the weather.  If it's 
like herding cats, why are so many of us cat sheppards?

Saludos, Doug



Hi,

Yeah, I agree, I too can see both sides, I can well see that getting
everything planetary classified is a good move, but if dealers suddenly
flooded the labs with NWA stuff, would the labs want to do it? 

The real question is how confident of authenticity are those dealers who
are selling material 'that's probably paired with..' ? . If it is
obvious by looking at like Allende for example then that's fair enough,
but you can't tell me that a weathered Martian or Lunar with no crust is
'obviously genuine' there's plenty of terrestrial stuff that would pass
a 'casual glance test'...

Best 
Mark Ford