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 <raremeteori...@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 <meteorite...@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@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@meteoritecentral.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Adam Hupe wrote via > >>>>>> Meteorite-list <meteorite-list@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@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@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@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@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@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
