[meteorite-list] NWA 4293

[Adam Hupe]

Dear List,

It has come to my attention that an individual (not a well-known dealer) on 
eBay is marketing bogus stones as NWA 4293 when in fact it is just another 
sell-proclaimed pairing. A collector took the time to send me a lot 
consisting of five stones that this person offered as NWA 4293 and all of 
the stones had caliche on the bottom of them, something that has not been 
found on a single NWA 4293 stone that I am aware of.  This is bad because I 
wholesaled out several lots to honest dealers who are now offering it. I 
made notes of the distribution so I am aware of the dealers who carry this 
particular stone. I am giving this person exactly one week to pull this 
bogus material and then I will publicly expose them as this is not fair to 
the dealers and customers who purchased the real material in good faith. I 
am still working on an informative website and will start listing the 
distribution of each NWA meteorite that we are involved with if I have to 
and if I see something bogus I will not hesitate to publicly point it out.

A dealer made this comment: People do NOT own NWA numbers - they are used to 
describe material

Here is my response to this:

I agree that while nobody owns any numbers, they do own the material that 
these numbers are used to describe.  These days, using official numbers 
(serial numbers basically) to describe untested or unconfirmed material is 
nothing short of fraud. Take for instance a serialized BSG rated baseball 
card for whom the owner took the time to have analyzed.  This serial number 
can be referenced online just like a meteorite. This number is used to 
describe a particular card, not any other card whether it is identical, 
comes from the same batch or not. Claiming something is paired with another 
meteorite without any scientific data to back it up is wrong in the case of 
meteorites from areas of high concentration like NWA. Even if a pairing is 
suspected, a new number has to be assigned according to NomCom rules which 
the IMCA claims to adhere to.  In the past, this rule was unclear but is now 
well known by anybody who deals NWA meteorites and should be honored. It is 
alright to mention pairings just as long as the stone has been studied, has 
its own number and the data supports a pairing, otherwise I see it as being 
misleading.  It is also against the MetSoc rules that we claim to adhere to. 
The NomCom has loosened it's rules in regards to multiple stone finds just 
as long as they are all submitted at the same time so now there is 
absolutely no excuse.

I am not trying to start something here, just giving somebody the 
opportunity to correct a wrong without mentioning names.

Adam