IMCA says: "Please do not sell or trade any meteorites you may have found ( or any questionable meteoritic material ) unless it has been verified by a meteorite expert. If your customer expresses dissatisfaction with a transaction, it is good business to give the customer an exchange or refund. Any member accused of fraudulent practices or ignoring legitimate customer complaints will subject their membership to a 'review.' " Robert Szep says: "... One person tells me that an expert says it's slag... There were also people wanting to buy smaller specimens...Hmmm SEVERAL experts SEVERAL DIFFERENT Verdicts... NOW WHAT??? What ever happened to people valuing their OWN OPINIONS. It seems more people are concerned about what somebody else thinks about what they may or may not be interested in purchasing. HERE'S A NOVEL IDEA... judge for yourself... If you don't think this is a meteorite DON'T BID ON THE THING! "
MexicoDoug says: As a new organization which has grown faster than it's britches, IMCA is now confronted with an test case. That is a good thing, in my opinion. Let me explain what I would suggest if I had a say: Maybe IMCA can use this circumstance to clarify what it can and can't do (a la Bob Verish initial comments), as it certainly isn't the solution to all the world's problems, and to require it to be is not too reasonable. The IMCA "rule" I have quoted above which applies in the present case is weak and is really the problem here, I believe. Not Robert Szep. After all, according to him, he truly believes he has a meteorite, and I am reminded of a find or two of my own tht was hard to give up. So the applicable IMCA text mentions "an expert" needs to have approved it is a meteorite. Looks like Robert Szep's found "an expert" that works for him, and he believes it. He goes on to call it "material" and "iron" when he specifically discusses the objections to authenticity. Of course Robert could be wrong... Well, how many IMCA members have sold or been NWA unclassified customers? Before jumping to conclusions, the mechanics are the same deal here as NWA unclassified, differing only due to subjective opinions. Now, the text of Robert Szep's ad is clear. In the end, he puts the onus on the bidder to not bid if you don't believe him. Not the best business practice in my opinion, but not totally without warning to the bidder. If Bill Clinton "didn't have sex with that woman", and mostly got away with it, Robert would seem to be fine, technically, meteorite or not. That IMCA looks a bit foolish before a frustrated community isn't IMCA's real dilemma. IMCA rules do not define what is meant by "an expert". Also, a "legitimate complaint" isn't defined at all ... it is left to opinion which isn't clearly reproducible. Unclassified NWA is routinely bought and sold by many members. IMCA needs a web page of definitions and/or names and/or organizations that are expert meteorite litmus testers. It needs to adjust to reality and specify under what circumstance unclassified material can be sold and not incur a rule violation. And if someone wants to sell something that doesn't fit the strict definition, IMCA should require a disclaimer to be used by all members in representations to "insure fairness" to potential well intentioned purchasers. None of that exists now. So IMCA's exercising its "teeth" has become as complicated as predicting the weather when there are some clouds around. Finally, with its 299 members (or 298 or 297), and an intended responsibility this is one of those defining moments. What is the impartial mechanism to officially inform an IMCAâer to stop a representation. A quorum of the Authenticity Committee? Did IMCA even think of having an authenticity committee? It does have committee's... And if the Authenticity Committee stops some member from selling, and were wrong, does the committee get removed from the IMCA. That may be harsh, but there needs to be something that happens. A single individual can continue to do the communicating as present, but an impartial process which is transparent and easily explainable to all is the only hope, in my opinion. Oh, yes. All members would need to confirm the new policies, as the small-time nature of the IMCA goes out the window in favor of stricter mechanics, since the 29X members who are at risk of being blacklisted will now have a higher standard of authenticity to adhere to than initially agreed upon joining. These are my thoughts. They are not meant to be anything beyond something positive. I don't like IMCA posts on the meteorite list, but if everyone is talking about them, and it has the possibility of influencing how authenticity is contemplated in the future, it is probably a good thing that IMCA got opinions from members and critics alike. With all of the above, the rules are defined and you don't get this third world paralysis-abuse scenario for what should be really simple decisions for many with the trafficking rules in hand. I am an IMCA member, but that doesn't stop me from being a strong critic of it when it comes to certain policies and abominable response times to the membership. It is no longer a group of friends that are all on the same wavelength. It now would like to be an seal of approval, no matter how much infighting or cozying up happens among the membership. For me, the solution here is more than posting on the web site what the dictionary defines as authenticity, out of context. Saludos, Doug
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
