[meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
Mendy Ouzillou
mendy.ouzillou at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 10:39:15 EDT 2024
Since the GMA <https://gmeta.org/> and I were mentioned at the end of the post below, I will make the following points.
1. Mark Lyon is a member in good standing of the Global Meteorite Association.
2. The GMA’s responsibility only begins when a formal complaint <https://gmeta.org/community/complaints> has been lodged against a member.
These are to be interpreted as two independently statement of facts and nothing more.
Regards to all,
Mendy
From: Meteorite-list <meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com> On Behalf Of Jason Utas via Meteorite-list
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:03 PM
To: Mark Lyon <mark.lyon.iivy at gmail.com>
Cc: Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; humboldt bay jay <humboldtbayjay at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
Hello Everyone,
Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find themselves.
It's hard to disagree with common sense. Unfortunately, Mark has already made at least a few pretty bad common sense pairing mistakes that I'm pretty sure have put misrepresented material into circulation. Like this one <https://i.imgur.com/dqkqk05.jpg> , where Mark decided that an unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another dealer's published CR2. And this one <https://i.imgur.com/A0y83Tj.jpg> , where Mark decided that a CV3 was paired with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous chondrite. More on these meteorites below.
Mark mentioned some of our past conversations. I agree: they were pretty crazy, but I wouldn't say it's because of anything I said. I guess it's a good thing I saved them all, and can share them with you.
Let's get right to it.
In mid-January of 2023, I let John Humphreys know, in private, that some “Erg Chech 003" "CR2” slices he was offering on eBay looked to be swapped with a ~CV3. John's one of the few dealers I would trust to handle an issue like that honestly and quickly. Given the texture of the stone and its abundant CAIs, it couldn't have been a CR2. Not possible. A photo of the material speaks for itself <https://i.imgur.com/dqkqk05.jpg> : a real specimen of Erg Chech 003 is on the right. To his credit, John immediately pulled the slices he'd listed. I had no way of knowing it at the time, but Mark had sold John this unclassified meteorite as the published CR2 Erg Chech 003 <https://imgur.com/a/47qmQK7> . Unfortunately, by the time I'd messaged John about the problem, some amount of the ~CV3 had already been sold on by a few of the dealers who routinely distribute Mark's material, and you can still find some of those unclassified ~CV3 slices in circulation as CR2s / Erg Chech 003 <https://5dhealingcrystals.com/products/pallasite-meteorite-erg-chech> . Not great.
Had I said nothing, there's no reason to think anyone else would have caught the misrepresented material, and the rest of that ~CV3 would have been sold as the CR2. Mark keeps telling people I'm often wrong, but...he admitted to the problem in private and refunded John <https://i.imgur.com/lUWiP9q.png> . Hm.
I would add: I don't blame John Humphreys for what happened with the fake Erg Chech 003. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to ID a carbonaceous chondrite by sight, especially based on just a few small slices. Someone classifying and selling new, unclassified meteorites has a greater burden of responsibility than someone who thinks they're buying a documented meteorite from a reputable dealer. Ultimately, Mark was the one who put those specimens into circulation labelled as something they weren't. It should have been safe for John to trust him.
This "Erg Chech 003" ~CV3 is also a perfect example of Mark's ‘rules for thee but not for me.’ Mark argued in his email that Benzaki Mohamed's use of Jason Whitcomb's NWA number was different from Taza, Jikharra 001, etc., because Whitcomb's CK was "probably a single person classification with low total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is different from huge finds."
Well, let's look up Erg Chech 003 <https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=74840> . How many tonnes is it? It has a TKW of...just 1.1 kilograms. Oh. That's...really small. And it's owned by...two dealers who often collaborate with each other. Not Mark. So...not only did Mark use someone else's DCA number from a small find -- he screwed up the pairing when doing it and put misidentified material into circulation. ...I guess "common sense" rules only apply to everyone else. Not Mark Lyon.
Let's turn the clock back to January 2023 for a moment. When I first notified John about the issue with the fake Erg Chech 003, I had no idea the material had even come from Mark. How could I? Erg Chech 003 wasn't even "his classification." I didn't know it yet, but John had forwarded my messages to Mark, letting him know I was the one who had raised the issue.
I'd never put two and two together before, but, after reviewing our correspondence, it's like a switch flipped within about a week of my messaging John about the issue. As far as I can tell, Mark didn't like the idea of being 'corrected,' and that's when he decided that he didn't like me. After a few unwarranted, aggressive interactions on Facebook that same month, Mark went after me in private. It was weird. He called me a bunch of names, and a liar a dozen or so times. I responded by simply calling out his empty insults and asking him what he thought I'd lied about. He never did give me an answer. After a few days of that strange back and forth, I think it became apparent to him that he wouldn't get a rise out of me. He cracked and wrote this:
https://imgur.com/a/mVVnmF1
I don't feel the need to address his scattershot insults: it's clear that Mark knows even less about me than he does about meteorites. I wasn't interested in trading jibes, and there was no hope of reasoning with that -- so, after saving all of our conversations, I blocked him. I don't know or care who blocked whom first. I think Mark's fixation on that detail is...telling.
In his email, Mark also mentioned when he and I first met. I'd be glad to fill out what happened that afternoon:
The first time I met Mark Lyon was at the Tucson Show in 2021. As I walked through the doorway into his room, he was having a conversation with Robert Cucciara and Ashley Humphreys. They were discussing how to get Dustin Dickens banned from eBay for 'selling pieces of one of Mark’s classifications.' From what I gathered: Bob had bought some of whatever meteorite it was from Mark, and Bob didn't appreciate the competition from Dustin on eBay. Mark hadn't sold Dustin any of that meteorite, so they concluded that Dustin was 'guilty of using Mark's NWA number.' I looked around the room while the three of them spent a few minutes talking about how they might be able to get Dustin removed from eBay. To be fair, Mark did, once, suggest reaching out to Dustin, but Ashley and Bob seemed set on trying to get him booted, and the conversation went on for some time -- the group at one point pored over a phone to look at Dustin's eBay listings.
Mark was new to meteorites and the community. I guess I shouldn't have stuck my nose in it (I know), but I consider Dustin honest, and a friend, and...it all sounded pretty bad. I pointed out that dealers and collectors routinely use others’ numbers when it is convenient -- including Taza (NWA 859), and others. I also told Mark that, many years ago, I visited UCLA with Peter to drop off a Taza individual for the type specimen of the new iron. A few other dealers also contributed material. I said that if Mark claimed to own the NWA number for whatever they were talking about, he shouldn't use numbers like NWA 859, because he didn't contribute to that type specimen and didn't own that number. By Mark's own reasoning, Peter and I, and some other dealers, submitted the type specimen for that meteorite: it was our number. Now, three years after that conversation, Mark apparently remembers it well enough to mention that particular meteorite I used as an example...but his depiction is pretty misleading. Especially given that we've had ~the same conversation more than once, as shown by this Facebook chat <https://imgur.com/a/Gx2lKlN> . That chat is also interesting for a few other reasons - Mark succinctly lays out his thoughts on DCA numbers and pairings there.
After what went down at Tucson, I gave Dustin a heads up and warned him about the trouble that might be coming his way. From what Dustin told me later, the issue was as simple as...a typo. Swapped digits on an NWA number. ...All of that misguided ill-will and animosity, over a simple mistake. I'd have thought the issue was resolved then, but, as you can see in that Facebook chat, Mark was still quick to malign Dustin two years later.
My two conversations with Mark give good insight into his views on DCA numbers: When Mark wants to use a DCA number someone else obtained, to quote Mark, "nobody owns a classification number". But, if someone else uses one of Mark's numbers, it's very not okay.
That's not common sense. It's just a double standard.
An appeal to "common sense" always sounds great because it should be, by definition, reasonable. The trouble is that "common sense" means completely different things to different people. It's an empty statement, like a politician saying they support "common sense gun laws." I don't see how anyone could argue with that -- but good luck with getting two people to agree on what it means. Benzaki Mohamed thought it was common sense to sell a batch of NWA fragments as being paired with a published find. Jason Whitcomb thought common sense meant not doing that. That discrepancy is why we're here.
"Common sense" is great until money's involved and two people don't agree on something. Or until someone figures out that fresh Agoudal looks kind of like Taza, and they can charge five times more for it by writing a new label. ...Or until someone thinks they know meteorites pretty well, when they might not...
...While writing this, I was curious to find out if Mark had ever gotten his "Erg Chech 003" ~CV3 classified, so I checked the Bulletin for CVs with his name on them. There were just three <https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=lyon&sfor=text&ants=&nwas=&falls=&valids=&stype=contains&lrec=50&map=ge&browse=&country=All&srt=name&categ=CV+chondrites&mblist=All&rect=&phot=&strewn=&snew=0&pnt=Normal%20table&dr=&page=0> , two of which had published photos. Neither of them was a match -- but even though I was looking at just two meteorites, another common sense pairing seemed to emerge.
Which of these meteorites is the CV3 NWA 14743?: this ~CV3 <https://i.imgur.com/4nTVJaS.jpg> or this rock that looks much more like a ~CK <https://i.imgur.com/2X74bsS.jpg> ? If you guessed both of them <https://www.ebay.pl/itm/325559984853> (2 <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/225939120723?customid&toolid=10050> ), you're right! The Bulletin says NWA 14743 was found as three fragments. It sure looks to me like at least two of them weren't paired. Oops. Maybe someone else mixed up a slice? That would be convenient...but I'm seeing more specimens of both online. Don't think so.
Honestly, I don't think there's anything I could say about Mark that's worse than those two pictures. One more time: here's <https://i.imgur.com/A0y83Tj.jpg> "NWA 14743." And <https://i.imgur.com/dqkqk05.jpg> "Erg Chech 003." Right click and open the images in a new tab for full resolution.
Mark also mentioned Omolon in his message. I have some apprehensions about the "Omolon" that has recently surfaced on the market, and I stand by <https://i.imgur.com/jz1vfJ8.png> my comments: I said the material looked questionable to me, said why, and asked for any information that might corroborate its authenticity. No one offered any information about it, so I see no reason to trust it.
I've been collecting meteorites for 25 years. I should be excited at the prospect of Omolon becoming available. But, I saw one fragment at Tucson and immediately thought it looked...concerning. I then saw some pieces listed on eBay, and they looked...similar. I had no idea Mark was involved with it, and I don't know who supposedly found it, or if all of the material on the market came from a single, supposedly reputable source. While I don't have analytical proof that any specimens being sold as Omolon aren't Omolon, I wouldn't touch it. Why?
Let's play a game. Some of these specimens are supposedly from a witnessed fall from 40 years ago. The others are all cleaned pieces of disaggregated, highly weathered pallasites that have been on Earth for untold thousands of years. Find the Omolon! <https://imgur.com/a/Q9gK8eT>
Give up? Don't worry, I wouldn't be able to figure it out, either. I don't think anyone could. It's photos 2, 7, 8, and 9. Everything else is Brahin and Admire. The sharp 'scalloping' visible on the "Omolon" specimens are spots where corrosion has eaten into the metal; the fragments have been shaped by weathering. Those pits should be filled with oxides: a few are, but most are not. Most of the rust that was on the surface has been either chemically or mechanically removed by a human. It's difficult to say post-cleaning, but I think the remaining platy oxides and oxide layers under some of the olivine crystals are consistent with these fragments being part of a larger mass, cut by veins of oxides. None of that would make sense if these were Omolon. They all look much more weathered to me than something that should be analogous, like a Sikhote recovered in the ~1980s.
You could take skeletal fragments of almost any highly weathered pallasite and clean them to produce a similar product. Disaggregated Seymchan can look ~identical <https://i.imgur.com/rIXCgKe.jpg> (from a mass like this <https://i.imgur.com/axHt2Oq.jpg> ) after cleaning, but I couldn't find any photos online of small Seymchans like that, post-cleaning. You might be able to tell between some pallasite specimens like that if they had rounded versus angular olivine crystals, but many finds, like Brahin and Seymchan, contain regions of both.
Could these be Omolon? It's probably possible: spending 40 years buried in a wet spot could probably result in specimens with the pictured corrosion/weathering, after a rough chemical cleaning. How likely is it? Probability isn't the best way to think about this; they're either real or they're not, and unknown variables could flip it one way or the other: there could be great evidence that they're real. There's even a chance that someone did manage to find the square ~few meters where you might expect to find Omolon fragments out in the Taiga, they picked up some real Omolon, and it was later adulterated with misrepresented stuff by someone else, between then and now. That might sound crazy, but that ~exact scenario happened with Mifflin back in 2010, when I caught a few <https://meteoritegallery.com/mifflin-l5/> dealers mixing real Mifflin with Bassikounou/Chergach. Something similar also happened after Mangui fell: at least one Chinese dealer started selling large slices of HaH 346 as the much pricier Chinese fall in late 2018. Tarda? Yup. NWA 7034? Yup. Tissint? Yup. It's not rare.
I just haven't seen any "Omolon" specimens I would trust. I do trust hunters like Serge and Dima; if they said they'd personally found these specimens and cleaned them, I'd be inclined to believe them. But I would insist on knowing the chain of custody in detail for something like this. Barring that, I just don't think it makes sense. Hell, I even asked Dima about it a little while back, but haven't heard back yet.
I think that's all pretty reasonable. Twenty-five years of experience, observations, paired with common sense. No jumping to conclusions. And I'd still love for my suspicions to be wrong in this case. So...I guess Mark can just share the information he has? He knows it's real. He can put my suspicions to rest, and prove me wrong. It should be simple. I'm all ears.
Mark apparently doesn't know much about me, my past, or what I do. I don't owe him any explanations, but, since he's attacked me in public, I'm going to comment on it here for the benefit of everyone else.
Grad school aside, I identify specimens for whoever asks, including museums and institutions, and most of that isn't public . A recent public but unsolicited example would be this stone, published <https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=81266> as a new Martian a few months ago. That specimen <https://fineart.ha.com/itm/meteorites/martian/presumed-tissint-martian-meteorite-martian-shergottite-tata-morocco-29-28-55-n-7-36-/a/8096-72175.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515> was listed in a Heritage auction as a Tissint individual about a year ago. After I let them know that the specimen was not Tissint, Heritage amended the listing before the auction, and I'm glad to see that they sorted it out ethically with the buyer afterwards. Heritage had the stone analyzed, and its description shows that the stone is not an olivine-phyric basalt, and is not Tissint. I've caught a number of issues like that for major auction houses, but they almost never wind up published and identifiable like that. And I’m still curious about who tried to list that stone as Tissint…
There are two problems in a large meteorite auction scheduled for next month. I don't want to name the auction, but you can probably figure it out. The specimens are 100% misidentified. Can you spot them?
I don't know how many of my IDs have been analytically confirmed, but I can say that <https://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ashcreekzunhua.png> many have been (also NWA 11889, and others). I can't quote a correct/incorrect rate, because it's not clear-cut; I've voiced concerns about material when I haven't been certain that it was misrepresented -- like this Omolon. I don't think you can really be right or wrong if you say "I think this looks off, does anyone have any details on it?" Asking that should be fine in a community like ours, where so much material gets both intentionally and unintentionally mislabeled. If a specimen looks weird, or wrong, or whatever, people should be allowed to question it, and that should be okay. And it should also be okay to point out when obvious fakes <https://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/general-discussion-gc5/what-did-i-find-gc11/683620-tiger-tail-meteorite/page2> surface.
Mark's only been doing meteorite-related stuff for a few years and he has no related background. I'd expect some mishaps from anyone in those circumstances. I guess as long as Mark refunds people when it happens, like he did with John, it's not really unethical for Mark to berate anyone who points out that he's sold misrepresented material? I don't understand it, but it won't stop me. I have no qualms about publicly posting any other bad IDs I see, and insults he throws out, so that you all can see the kind of guy he is, too.
I suppose it's not really that simple, because some misrepresented material is still going to get into circulation, which is a problem... Maybe some of the more experienced members in the Global Meteorite Association (GMA) can help Mark sort it out? I don't know. What's supposed to happen with NWA 14743 now? I'm seeing active listings of what looks to me like at least two different meteorites, sold listings for both going back at least a year...pieces for sale on websites like www.meteorites-for-sale.com <http://www.meteorites-for-sale.com> , sold pieces there... It looks like a real headache. I wouldn't know where to begin.
As Mendy said, caveat emptor. Always. IMCA, GMA, me, doesn't matter.
Jason
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 7:50 PM Mark Lyon <mark.lyon.iivy at gmail.com <mailto:mark.lyon.iivy at gmail.com> > wrote:
Jason Humboldt,
You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas. He has been doing this for years. He isnt going to change. You should have seen some of the messages he sent me before i blocked him. The first time I met him he went in my display room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza (nwa 859) because it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was just using it as an example because he thought he overheard me attacking dustin Dickens (a friend of mine) for pairing meteorites. More recently, he made damaging accusations about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not caring how it affected a Russian group who had just spent months travelling and collecting the materials. He always thinks he is right, and he very seldom is. For the record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. You politely told him not to use your classification, which was probably a single person classification with low total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is different from huge finds like hah346 and jikhara 001 and erg chech and whatever else he complained about. I didn't read his whole message because I have heard it all before. Collectors want to know they are getting these, and not another meteorite. People are not using these names to be dishonest but to accurately describe what they are selling. It would be doing the community a disservice not to use these names.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> > wrote:
I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend on your reply.
Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me as a hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best practices. Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention. Many times I have gone wrong assuming the worst in people's actions. So one of my strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention that someone could have. I admit sometimes it is difficult with your approach (and attempt to shame me) but since your critique was not sound I came to reason that you saw an injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed and you felt the need to "punch the bully in his face". A fierce sense of justice that sometimes leads me to act foolish is also part of my condition so I was able to have sympathy with this realization. Now that you have responded I can more clearly see your intention. So here is my considered response.
To the community: I am happy to assist with meteoritics in any way that I can. If you have material that you feel might be paired with mine I am happy to look at any information and give my honest response. It would be unethical and dirty feeling to do otherwise. I have not made it to where I am in life by acting in short term interests. Relationships are life long.
To Benzaki Mohamed: I am sorry if I shamed you. I am often blunt and act quickly. Jason's best point is that I should have reached out to you in private first. If you send me images or any supporting information I am happy to give you my honest opinion. You would then have my full support marketing the material as paired if it checks out.
To Jason: I forgive you. I know what it is like to have conflict with the world.
Best regards,
Jason
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 5:50 PM Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com <mailto:meteoritekid at gmail.com> > wrote:
Hello Jason,
As long as material is described accurately, I don't care what you do. I only butted in here because it annoyed me to see you attacking a Moroccan seller who is probably selling accurately paired material, while you’re openly doing the same thing with other meteorites. Glass house + throwing stones, not cool.
I'm saying that it should be fine for you to buy and sell HaH 346 and Jikharra 001 as those meteorites as long as you've accurately IDd them. But not if you're going to tell other people they can't do the same thing. That's the rub.
Your points -
1 & 4) Why does it matter where you got your HaH 346? It didn't matter to you where Benzaki got his NWA 15758.
Your posts didn't address the origin of Benzaki Mohamed's CK in any way, or whether or not his material is paired with NWA 15758. Based on everything you've shared here, you don't know or care about whether or not Benzaki's material is paired with yours. Your concern is "your NWA number" and protecting that investment. I can empathize with that, but your #1 and #4 bullet points don't agree with your actions:
Did you ask Benzaki where his material had come from before you sent that public complaint? No. Did you confirm that it came from a different finder, the same place, or a different place? No. When it came to 'protecting your NWA number,' none of that mattered. Sure, the onus is on him to show it's paired, but you didn't give him a chance.
You were preemptively trying to avoid any possible / probable pairings to 'protect your investment.' I understand your motivations, and think many dealers would take your side, but it's ethically questionable, at best. TKWs affect meteorite values, and if you're aware of significant pairings, (main) masses, etc., and you hide that information from your customers, that's dishonest. Sure, new things can turn up, but what if a dealer sold you a "main mass," and you later found out that they were aware of a larger specimen all along? Would you care? Would you be annoyed? What would you think?
...Is what you're doing here any different?
You asked me what I would do. I sold some NWA 15364 (nakhlite) a while back. When describing it, I said: "Northwest Africa 15364 is one member of a large pairing group including, but not limited to: Hassi Messaoud 001, Bir Moghrein 002, Qued Mya 005, NWA 13368, NWA 13669, NWA 13764, NWA 13786, NWA 14369, NWA 14962, and NWA 15200. The published total known weight of these finds is approximately 4.3 kilograms. It is probable that additional pairings will be approved in the future." That was ~as accurate as I could describe the meteorite's pairings and TKW, to the best of my ability. I spent a bit of time looking at the analytical data for each of them in the Bulletin, finding photos of each of them, and trying to make sure I got it right. I guess I could have omitted mentioning the pairings, to make my pieces seem more rare? Would that be honest? I'd say no. But a few dealers are definitely doing that with some of those pairings...
It hurts collectors. Last week, I saw someone comment on a Facebook post, excited because he'd purchased multiple pieces of the above nakhlites. He thought he'd bought pieces of different meteorites, not pieces of paired stones. He seemed disappointed to learn otherwise. It's great for the sellers, not so good for collectors. And it's not a new issue. The first similar instance I remember was in an ancient met-list thread back in the early 2000s, when someone tried to sell a meteorite paired with NWA 869. NWA...900ish, if I recall... It's probably been 15 years. Hmmm...
http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0989.html
http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/1120.html
http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0961.html
My email doesn't go back that far, had to find it on Google. NWA 900 is another 869 pairing, but the problem was NWA 904.
I've never really sat down and thought about it, but a significant part of the NWA market is based on dealers pleading or feigning ignorance about pairings and TKWs to collectors. It's ~accepted conduct, and it’s totally unethical. Dean Bessey called it out back in 2004, and nothing's changed.
2 & 5) We're talking about scientific descriptions of rocks. Little rocks are rocks. Big rocks are rocks. Size doesn't matter.
Unfortunately, larger finds and falls are widely distributed, tend to get less scrutiny, and get mislabeled often. Those three big meteorites you're using as examples are some of the biggest problems, because they're such large finds. Sure, it can be fun: I couldn't tell you the number of interesting things I've pulled out of lots of "NWA 869" over the years. And you should keep an eye out for the fresh L3s in shipments of HaH 346. Many of them still have skid-marks, and there's nothing quite like a W0 type-3. If you're on Facebook, you've probably seen the multi-kg lots of a totally new brecciated eucrite being offered as Jikharra in the past week or so, at Jikharra prices. But the mistakes aren't always unintentional, and they don't always favor the customer. And it's no one's responsibility to catch them, so...it just happens. Boatloads of random, unclassified meteorites are sold as NWA 869, HaH 346, Taza, Ziz, etc. Every big DCA meteorite. Ever since Agoudal was discovered, ~fresh pieces keep coming up as Taza, at inflated prices. A ~300 gram lot sold on eBay just a few weeks ago. There are some on eBay right now. Both of those irons are pretty big finds. A fake Tissint even turned up in a Heritage Auction a year or so ago. "But it's a big find" = not a good argument for arbitrary pairing.
The issue is accuracy, and material getting misrepresented, and I don't have a good answer. The Meteoritical Society has its official pairing guidelines here, Section 4.2:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/docs/nc-guidelines.htm
The rules say that you need proof of pairing. Proof. Either fragments physically fit together, or you have in situ photos -- or you shouldn’t assume rocks are paired. That would theoretically ensure that no mistakes are made. And when scientists are in charge of things, like in Antarctica, that's what happens. Everything gets analyzed.
No meteorite dealers follow the guidelines. 0. Historically, our community has assumed that a dealer who got a meteorite analyzed could reliably "self-pair" other meteorites to that specimen. The reasoning was that a lab had analyzed a sample, and the dealer could directly compare the analyzed specimen to others, so there was little room for error. It "helps to ensure authenticity." But, in reality, this practice gave dealers a carte-blanche to "pair" any meteorites that looked grossly similar. As long as you got one rock classified, no one would question anything you called paired. It's great. It can be really convenient if you get something analyzed and more of it turns up later. But...it also opens the door for problems.
>From a practical standpoint: we're never going to get air-tight documentation for most finds, large or small. And it would be ~impossible, and a huge waste of resources, to analyze every specimen of something like NWA 869. Or even NWA 15758. It doesn't work. In the end, everyone does their own thing, both collectors and scientists trust dealers to pair things correctly, and most things wind up being correctly identified. Many don't, though. It ultimately comes down to the given dealer, their experience, their judgement, and their honesty. And no one is perfect, and dishonest people exist, so material will be mislabeled. It is inevitable.
You and I are both familiar with how NWA meteorites are bought and sold: single finds are often divided and sold on by any number of sellers and resellers. ~Identical lots of the same find turn up simultaneously with multiple dealers, often with a few odd meteorites mixed in. That's completely normal, and NWA sellers are frequently aware of others who are also offering the same material. The way you responded to Benzaki Mohamed denied all of that, and was demeaning.
There's no good reason to assume Benzaki's material either is or isn't NWA 15758 until you see it for yourself. He's a pretty well-known dealer; I'd want to see the stones for myself, but, without knowing any other details, I'd be inclined to think he was right about the pairing. Kind of like how you're saying it would be okay to trust Benzaki if he was selling a lot of a larger find like Jikharra 001. And like how everyone trusts you to ensure that all of the fragments you're selling as NWA 15758 are paired, even though probably just one piece was analyzed. ...And how everyone would trust you if you bought Benzaki's new lot and said it, too, was paired with NWA 15758...
Everyone is relying on your experience, your judgement, and your integrity, to determine whether or not those fragments are all paired. Yet you're telling Benzaki, or his supplier, or maybe even the actual finder of NWA 15758, that they can't do the same thing, in this one case. Not because they're unfamiliar with the find, not because they don't have the same amount of experience as you, not because they're dishonest -- but "because of the resources you invested into getting the meteorite classified."
I don't agree with that.
I guess you're also arguing that NWA 15758 is different because it's "just 1 kg." But...is it? I haven't reached out to Benzaki to check out this new lot, but it sure sounds like that might not be true.
3) I don't see a difference between labeling a specimen as "someone else's" approved DCA number versus selling a specimen like that. Either way, you're assigning an identity to a meteorite. It's the same thing in the long run, especially if you're posting the photos publicly. If you think one is wrong, then the other should be, too. I don't have an issue with folks doing that as long as there's no doubt that the ID is correct, but I'm also not the one attacking someone else for doing it. Case in point: I agree that your large eucrite looks to be paired with Jikharra 001. But, if you're going to play that card, and post it as "likely paired" on your website, it should be fine for Benzaki to say the same thing about his CK / NWA 15758 if he believes it. Right? If not, you're holding Benzaki to a higher standard than yourself.
By now, you've had some time to look into this. Did you ask for photos of Benzaki's CK? Did you figure out if his lot is from the same area as yours? From the same finder? Do they look like the same material? Do you think they're paired? What is the real TKW of NWA 15758? Is it just the ~1 kg in the Bulletin? How much more is out there? None? Just this one lot? More?
You asked me what I would do. If it were my meteorite, I'd want to know. And I wouldn't want to hide that information from potential buyers. I don't think that would be honest.
If it turned out that Benzaki was right about the pairing, you attacked him for correctly labeling a meteorite. I'd say you should probably apologize to him.
Sorry this got so long.
Jason
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:03 PM humboldt bay jay <humboldtbayjay at gmail.com <mailto:humboldtbayjay at gmail.com> > wrote:
I am sending this again as I realized I only replied to you and not the list as well. This turns out good for me because it offers a chance to better compose my thoughts. I was running errands when I sent the first email. To begin again:
Jason,
I see what you are saying, and it is a reasonable point but I disagree. These are the reasons:
1. I can elaborate that "since you never contacted me" means I would have been happy to provide assistance and the name if the vendor would have done so with some images of supporting information such as sourcing from the same finder.
2. There is a clear difference between multi ton finds that have ample documentation and a kilo find that has had little publicity. Even then I agree that best practices are to communicate leading me to
3. Point out that you were part of one of my conversations about this in regard to the likely Jikharra specimen you are referencing. You stated that "The Jikharra’s obviously that." You are also well aware that I am not selling any of the obviously Jikharra until my own classification is approved because you were part of the discussion.
4. You don't actually know where I sourced my material because you did not ask. For example the metbul mentioned many kilograms traded as Ghadamis that was not in Marcin's possession. Since I bought and traded Ghadamis before the name HaH 346 was approved, how do you think I should have handled the situation differently?
5. In regards to nwa 869 the following quote is from the metbul "At least 2 metric tons of material comprising thousands of individuals has been sold under the name NWA 869 in the market places of Morocco and around the world." along with the appropriate caveats due to its abundance- "Scientists are advised to confirm the classification of any specimens they obtain before publishing results under this name." So again I do not feel you are making an apples to apples comparison with your critique of my logic.
We all obviously respect your encyclopedic understanding of meteorites so perhaps you can share with us your framework for best practices in these situations.
Best regards,
Jason
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:21 PM Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com <mailto:meteoritekid at gmail.com> > wrote:
Hello Jason,
To be consistent, you should remove the HaH 346 and NWA 869 specimens you have listed for sale on your website. Those classifications were submitted by other dealers; your stones are unclassified individuals from DCAs with no evidence of their find locations, etc.
On your "featured" page, you also have a specimen listed as a "likely Jakharra 001 Pairing." Similar issues aside, relying on that standard, it should be okay for Benzaki Mohamed to call his specimens "likely NWA 15758 pairings."
Regards,
Jason
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:09 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> > wrote:
Thank you Benzaki Mohamed for swiftly reaching out to me. I appreciate your attention to this matter. All is good.
Best regards to everyone,
Jason Whitcomb
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 PM <meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com> > wrote:
Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com>
You can reach the person managing the list at
meteorite-list-owner at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list-owner at meteoritecentral.com>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (paul at tucsonmeteorites.com <mailto:paul at tucsonmeteorites.com> )
2. Re: Very sad news (Ruben Garcia)
3. Re: Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 (humboldt bay jay)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700
From: <paul at tucsonmeteorites.com <mailto:paul at tucsonmeteorites.com> >
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> >
Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
Message-ID: <B9FA8D09888B415E9BF201CB08E98D1B at secureserver.net <mailto:B9FA8D09888B415E9BF201CB08E98D1B at secureserver.net> >
Content-Type: text/plain
Thursday, Mar 14 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: HAH 346
Contributed by: J?r?me de Creymer
http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/14/2024
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:17:06 -0700
From: Ruben Garcia <rrg85382 at gmail.com <mailto:rrg85382 at gmail.com> >
To: bernd.pauli at paulinet.de <mailto:bernd.pauli at paulinet.de>
Cc: Meteorite Mailing List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> >
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
Message-ID:
<CAGSP0MWZt2RtT_w=JXHjTi60UojwDGVDoReUF4jfJd7PaiMF8A at mail.gmail.com <mailto:JXHjTi60UojwDGVDoReUF4jfJd7PaiMF8A at mail.gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Bernd,
I've know John for a very long time. This is very sad indeed. Thank you for
posting this.
Ruben Garcia
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 4:03?PM bernd.pauli--- via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> > wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> It is my sad duty to inform you that John Blennert has passed away :-(
>
> John, rest in peace!
>
> Bernd
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/55acab68/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:53:43 -0700
From: humboldt bay jay <humboldtbayjay at gmail.com <mailto:humboldtbayjay at gmail.com> >
To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14
Message-ID:
<CAAt9en4eeBOF8M_4p5anUOO9wO9+_QQV1E9-1MBjdnJ6yVhFtg at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAAt9en4eeBOF8M_4p5anUOO9wO9%2B_QQV1E9-1MBjdnJ6yVhFtg at mail.gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Benzaki Mohamed,
Since you have never reached out to me about my classification, Nwa 15758
CK6, I politely request that you do not use this name. I invested time and
resources into having it analyzed and if you wish to sell your material as
a named meteorite I suggest you do the same. Thank you in advance.
Jason
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:29?PM <
meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com> > wrote:
> Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> meteorite-list-owner at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list-owner at meteoritecentral.com>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (paul at tucsonmeteorites.com <mailto:paul at tucsonmeteorites.com> )
> 2. Meteorite carbon (Benzaki Mohamed)
> 3. Very sad news (bernd.pauli at paulinet.de <mailto:bernd.pauli at paulinet.de> )
> 4. Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS
> 2014-01-08 Disputed (Paul)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700
> From: <paul at tucsonmeteorites.com <mailto:paul at tucsonmeteorites.com> >
> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> >
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
> Message-ID: <E402350C7FB04BC489E974C560D88522 at secureserver.net <mailto:E402350C7FB04BC489E974C560D88522 at secureserver.net> >
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Wednesday, Mar 13 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: Hamlet
>
> Contributed by: Anne Black
>
> http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/13/2024
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:16:15 +0000
> From: Benzaki Mohamed <kemkemexpedition at gmail.com <mailto:kemkemexpedition at gmail.com> >
> To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite carbon
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAGZKZ4-7HUfr2N7mzy4hApuFExCsSJU66gN+v9AjUXJkT8TxCw at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAGZKZ4-7HUfr2N7mzy4hApuFExCsSJU66gN%2Bv9AjUXJkT8TxCw at mail.gmail.com> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi all members liste , I have a nice carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if
> anyone interested please contacte me.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240311/7131a467/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:48:20 +0100 (CET)
> From: bernd.pauli at paulinet.de <mailto:bernd.pauli at paulinet.de>
> To: "meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> "
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> >
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
> Message-ID: <825781290.98647.1710366500765 at www.ud-mail.de <mailto:825781290.98647.1710366500765 at www.ud-mail.de> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear List,
>
> It is my sad duty to inform you that John Blennert has passed away :-(
>
> John, rest in peace!
>
> Bernd
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/b5109823/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:16:00 -0500
> From: Paul <etchplain at att.net <mailto:etchplain at att.net> >
> To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific
> Ocean Site CNEOS 2014-01-08 Disputed
> Message-ID: <088038b3-ec22-4815-b8fc-d187f665a8a7 at att.net <mailto:088038b3-ec22-4815-b8fc-d187f665a8a7 at att.net> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Recently, a preprint has been posted to the arXiv site that
>
> disputes proposal that Be,La,U-rich spherules recovered form
>
> Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS 2014-01-0 are from an extrasolar
>
> origin. Instead, they argued to be microtektites of terrestrial
>
> lateritic sandstone.
>
> The preprint is:
>
> Desch, S., 2024. Be, La, U-rich spherules as
>
> microtektites of terrestrial laterites: What goes \\
>
> up must come down. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05161.
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05161
>
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2403/2403.05161.pdf
>
> The proposed extrasolar spherules are discussed in:
>
> Loeb, A., Adamson, T., Bergstrom, S., Cloete, R.,
>
> Cohen, S., Conrad, K., Domine, L., Fu, H., Hoskinson,
>
> C., Hyung, E., Jacobsen, S., Kelly, M., Kohn, J., Lard,
>
> E., Lam, S., Laukien, F., Lem, J., McCallum, R.,
>
> Millsap, R., Parendo, C., Petaev, M., Peddeti, C.,
>
> Pugh, K., Samuha, S., Sasselov, D., Schlereth, M.,
>
> Siler, J.J., Siraj, A., Smith, P.M., Tagle, R., Taylor,
>
> J., Weed, R., Wright, A., and Wynn, J. 2023.,
>
> Discovery of Spherules of likely extrasolar composition
>
> in the Pacific Ocean site of the CNEOS 2014-01-08
>
> (IM1) bolide. arXiv preprint 2308.15623
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15623
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.15623.pdf
>
> Loeb, A., Adamson, T., Bergstrom, S., Cloete, R.,
>
> Cohen, S., Conrad, K., Domine, L., Fu, H.,
>
> Hoskinson, C., Hyung, E., Jacobsen, S., Kelly, M.,
>
> Kohn, J., Lard, E., Laukien, F., Lem, J., McCallum, R.,
>
> Millsap, R., Parendo, C., Petaev, M., Peddeti, C.,
>
> Pugh, K., Samuha, S., Sasselov, D., Schlereth, M.,
>
> Siler, J.J., Siraj, A., Smith, P.M., Tagle, R., Taylor, J.,
>
> Weed, R., Wright, A., and Wynn, J. 2024. Recovery
>
> and classification of spherules from the Pacific Ocean
>
> site of the CNEOS 2014 January 8 (IM1) bolide.
>
> Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 8: 39.
>
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ad2370/meta
>
> Related paper, reprint and press release:
>
> Desch, S., and Jackson, A., 2023. Critique of arXiv
>
> submission 2308.15623, "Discovery of Spherules of
>
> Likely Extrasolar Composition in the Pacific Ocean
>
> Site of the CNEOS 2014-01-08 (IM1) Bolide", by A.
>
> Loeb et al arXiv:2311.07699
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07699
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.07699.pdf
>
> 'Alien' spherules dredged from the Pacific are probably just
>
> industrial pollution, new studies suggest. LiveScience, Nov. 16, 2023
>
>
> https://www.livescience.com/space/extraterrestrial-life/alien-spherules-dredged-from-the-pacific-are-probably-just-industrial-pollution-new-studies-suggest
>
> Gallardo, P.A., 2023. Anthropogenic Coal Ash as a Contaminant
>
> in a Micro-meteoritic Underwater Search. Research Notes of the
>
> AAS, 7(10), p.220.
>
> http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2024/32/PhC_vol_32_Lomas.pdf
>
> Yours,
>
> Paul H.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/4f81045c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14
> ***********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/5e27a1cd/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
------------------------------
End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
***********************************************
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com <mailto:Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240329/ac0acf04/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Meteorite-list
mailing list