[meteorite-list] [IMCA List] Martin Goff's Out Reach

Robert Verish bolidechaser at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 24 03:09:32 EST 2014 

Good Morning Michael,

Thanks for taking the time to compose your excellent explanation.  It gives not only newcomers to the meteorite market, but all of us, a better appreciation of the perils of pairing (not to mention self-pairing). 

With best regards,
Bob V.

 

> On Sunday, November 23, 2014 8:51 PM, Galactic Stone & Ironworks via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
> > Hi Robert!
> 
> I am glad to have this conversation, because I think it can shed some
> light on the issues of provenance and authenticity for newcomers who
> do not yet understand how the meteorite market works.
> 
> First, I want to emphasize for motive for asking the question was not
> to show-up or start a feud of any kind with the IMCA.
> 
> My motive was defend the honest non-members of the meteorite dealing
> world who are implicated every time a statement is made that suggests
> IMCA-sourced meteorites are more reliable than non-IMCA meteorites.
> 
> In fact, I do sincerely wish the IMCA success because they are the
> only game in town when it comes policing the meteorite market - the
> market is surely better for their efforts and I would not put my past
> personal issues with them over the integrity of the market as a whole.
> So to the IMCA I say - rock on.
> 
> About authenticity :
> 
> I chose NWA 869 as an example not because it is easily self-paired,
> which it is.  You are correct in stating that the vast majority of
> instances when NWA 869 is offered, it is indeed NWA 869.  I used it as
> an example because it is probably one of the most widely-distributed
> meteorites on the market, with the possible exception of Campo del
> Cielo.  While the success rate of pairing NWA 869 stones is quite
> high, the overwhelming amount of self-pairing that goes on in regard
> to 869 is problematic in and of itself.  We all agree that
> self-pairing should not be the rule of the land, yet it happens with
> great frequency with 869.  By law of averages, there should be some
> mistakes - 869 offered as unclassified and unclassifieds offered as
> 869.  (Although technically any self-paired meteorite that is not
> analyzed in a lab is "unclassified")
> 
> Newbies may not realize how easily and accurately 869 can be
> self-paired by an experience eye.  They just see that meteorite all
> over the market and the usual newbie question will arise - how do I
> know it is a meteorite at all?  Or, how do I know it is NWA 869 and
> not something else?  Newbies who are wondering such things, might come
> to the conclusion that such a meteorite is better purchased from an
> IMCA source, when in fact, almost all sources of 869 engage in
> non-scientific self-pairing, so therefore an IMCA-sourced 869 is no
> better or no worse than a non-IMCA-sourced 869.
> 
> Well, the IMCA seller is obligated to refund the buyer's money if an
> authenticity issue arises later, right?  Maybe.  If they value their
> IMCA membership, they will refund the buyer's money with no questions
> asked.  If they don't give a hoot about their membership, they may
> resign and walk away from the IMCA without issuing a refund to the
> buyer - this has happened before.  Really, the issue of giving refunds
> is not an IMCA issue, it is the hallmark of an ethical seller,
> regardless of their affiliation with any group.
> 
> Ok, Battle Mountain was a bad example.  I did not consider the limited
> distribution and superior documentation of the fall. Let's strike that
> one and just use the example of a non-NWA fall (pick one) versus a
> fresh-appearing NWA find.  If an unethical seller offers a NWA find
> stone as a more-valuable fall, how can any person or group "guarantee
> authenticity" short of full lab analysis?  If a question arises, the
> stone will need to be microprobed.  The IMCA does not own a
> microprobe, although many members certainly have access to one at
> various institutions.
> 
> Let's say the suspect stone is microprobed and is revealed to be a
> different petrologic type than the stone was being offered as.  For
> Battle Mountain, it is an L6.  If the suspect stone is revealed to be
> an H5, then it is obviously not Battle Mountain.  Mystery solved and
> the suspect stone is not Battle Mountain.  The seller in that case is
> either a scammer or an unwitting dupe.
> 
> But, what if the microprobe reveals the suspect stone is indeed an L6.
> The problem becomes more complex.  Ratios of target minerals can be
> compared and if they are wildly-different, then the mystery is solved.
> But what if the suspect L6 has mineral ratios within the standard for
> deviation or the margin of error for the fall in question?  Then what?
> Thin-section analysis?  Or....?
> 
> Guaranteeing "authenticity" opens up a very deep rabbit hole.
> 
> Perhaps a better motto would be "satisfaction guaranteed" - and even
> that can be problematic if the member in question resigns and runs
> without giving a refund.  Would the buyer be satisfied with such a
> result?
> 
> Like I said before, I think the IMCA is a good idea and serves a good
> purpose in the community.  However, they should be careful when
> issuing statements such as "authenticity guaranteed" because
> determining authenticity requires extensive analysis by reputable
> scientists in a lab stocked with millions of dollars worth of
> high-tech equipment.
> 
> Best regards and Happy Huntings,
> 
> MikeG
> 
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
> Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
> Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone
> Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/23/14, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>  Maybe Michael's questions are rhetorical, but I haven't read any 
> answers or
>>  replies.
>>  After all, in the past others have asked these same questions, and still
>>  never any satisfactory answers.
>> 
>>  But, allow me to answer the question of "how do you guarantee
>>  authenticity?", by stating the obvious:
>>  authenticity is established through well-documented provenance.
>> 
>>  Which leads me to question why chose Battle Mountain and NWA 869 to use as
>>  examples to prove your case.  You couldn't pick two meteorites that 
> would be
>>  less supportive of the point you are trying to make.
>>  I'm not saying that there aren't too many NWA chondrites being 
> self-paired
>>  to NWA 869 for marketing convenience, but this is one that dealers somehow
>>  have maintained a respectable "batting average" with their 
> guessing.
>>  Besides, how many complaints are there?  Who's expectations are not 
> being
>>  met when they purchase an uncut chondrite labeled as "NWA 869"?
>> 
>>  Battle Mountain!  BaM is the best example of a well-documented, recent 
> fall.
>>   It has the shortest chain of provenance!  It fell late 2012; it's 
> hunted
>>  and recovered by collectors and dealers; it's sold by those same 
> dealer's
>>  and BINGO, it's in your collection.  Any questions?  If so, don't 
> have very
>>  far to go to get answers.  That's called "provenance".
>>  Who is "guaranteeing authenticity"?  A quick search of 
> "Completed" eBay
>>  auctions shows only one meteorite dealer (Mendy) having sold a 3.9g
>>  partslice of BaM, where he clearly shows his source, the finder, by way of
>>  the original label.  That's another example of provenance.
>> 
>>  But just because Michael used bad examples doesn't mean that the point 
> he is
>>  trying to make isn't valid.  In fact, I think the majority of us agree 
> with
>>  him in principle.
>>  Yet, asking questions such, "How do I really know that it is Battle 
> Mountain
>>  and not one of hundreds of NWA L6 look-a-likes?" is very 
> counter-productive,
>>  to say the least.  Given that other customers can ask those same question,
>>  it's akin to pouring gasoline over oneself and then volunteering to 
> light
>>  the ceremonial Burning-Man bon-fire.
>>  To satisfy my curiosity, I found a link to images of "hundreds of NWA 
> L6
>>  look alikes":  http://tinyurl.com/ksdmulw
>>  Now, compare those to these images of BaM (L6) :
>>  http://tinyurl.com/oukblbh
>> 
>>  Wow, never expected that my answer to a rhetorical question would be this
>>  long.
>>  Anyway, I should thank everyone for giving my this opportunity to talk once
>>  more about Battle Mountain.
>>  It has prompted me to relinquish 2 of my BaM specimens, and I've 
> uploaded
>>  them onto eBay.
>>  If it makes everyone happy, I WON'T "guarantee authenticity"!
>>  But I'm still going to guarantee your satisfaction, or your money back!
>>  (Isn't that really the only thing that IMCA can require of their 
> members?
>>  ;-)
>>  Bob V.
>> 
>>  On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:01 AM, Galactic Stone & Ironworks via
>>  Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Jim and List,
>>> 
>>> Please do not take this as a knock at the IMCA, because it is not
>>> intended that way, and I certainly do want to experience the old
>>> "shoot the messenger" syndrome again.
>>> 
>>> How exactly does anyone "guarantee authenticity" in regards to 
> meteorites?
>>> 
>>> Let's look at a typical example that happens on a daily basis in the
>>> meteorite community :
>>> 
>>> If I am offered a specimen of Battle Mountain by a dealer.  How do I
>>> really know that it is Battle Mountain and not one of hundreds of NWA
>>> L6 look-a-likes?  Regardless of whether or not the seller is an IMCA
>>> member, how can one guarantee authenticity of any specimen, unless
>>> that particular specimen has been examined and analyzed by a reputable
>>> scientist?
>>> 
>>> I do not know of any dealers who have every batch of material they
>>> acquire tested at a lab. They use a combination of faith in their
>>> sources and hand-examination to determine if the material should be
>>> offered.  Sure, new unclassified material is analyzed to have it
>>> classified and officially approved by Met Soc.  But what about NWA
>>> 869?  How many dealers have their NWA 869 analyzed prior to offering
>>> it?  If it is untested, then how can one make any guarantees?
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> MikeG
>>> --
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
>>> Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
>>> Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone
>>> Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/23/14, Jim Wooddell via Meteorite-list
>>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>>>  Hello all!
>>>> 
>>>>  The IMCA has but one purpose, does it not? How can you possibly 
> argue
>>>>  that???
>>>>    It's for collectors, dealers and sellers....pretty basic 
> mission,
>>>>  Authenticity .  Nothing wrong with that!
>>>>  And any kind of outreach by the IMCA very much appears to be a 
> mistake
>>>>  in perception.
>>>>  The IMCA is not responsible for anything it's members do and 
> probably
>>>>  should not take any credit for
>>>>  anything their individual members do as it implies responsibility.
>>>> 
>>>>  Like Gary said, it's up to the individual.
>>>>  I don't think anyone is not supportive of outreach, it's 
> just not the
>>>>  function of the IMCA.
>>>> 
>>>>  REF:
>>>> 
> http://imca.cc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=14
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  Jim
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  On 11/22/2014 8:39 PM, Galactic Stone & Ironworks via 
> Meteorite-list
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>  Ray Watts said :
>>>>> 
>>>>>  "I have been told in the past that out reach is over reach 
> for the
>>>>>  I.M.C.A."
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Whoever said that, has no business being in the IMCA or any 
> other
>>>>>  group that claims to be supportive of education and outreach.  
> Walk
>>>>>  the walk or get the hell out.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  My two cents.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Also, agree 110% with what Gary said.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  MikeG
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  --
>>>>  Jim Wooddell
>>>>  jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net
>>>>  http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/
>>>> 
>>>>  ______________________________________________
>>>> 
>>>>  Visit 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 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 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
>

More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list