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

Bigjohn Shea bigjohnshea at mail.com
Fri Nov 3 21:12:54 EDT 2017 

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
> >

More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list