selling split pairs separately?

[Wrangellian]

I don't know to what extent this topic has been discussed before, but maybe it bears revisiting.

 

Can we all agree it is bad practice for anyone to sell each half of a split pair separately? But to what extent is it bad - just a shame, or a travesty? Depends on the fossil, I guess, but who can say which fossil matters more?

I think most dealers on our favorite auction site and elsewhere keep such pairs together, but I sometimes come across parts and counterparts being listed separately, and I usually suggest to the seller that they should sell them together. The response varies. Today I got:

"You know what they say about opinions?
To be honest with you, they WERE listed together and I dropped the price to list separately and offer them that way.
Really this is a conversation not worth my or your time."

Of course, money trumps everything - It appears that he had the pair listed together for a given price, and then split them into 2 auctions and lowered the price on each but not by a full half - so now they are more affordable individually, but the total, if sold, will come to more than the original combined price!

Is there something we can do? I'd like to suggest to ebay that they at least recommend -if not require- sellers to keep split pairs together, but I would need some form of backup. It could be an uphill battle if they think it's just one lone guy with this nitpicking opinion. I could direct them (or individual sellers) to this page if I get enough supporting comments, especially from professional scientists and collectors who buy fossils.

There is also a mineral/fossil dealer here on Vancouver Island who I've noticed sells split pairs separately, such as Eocene insects from the BC Interior. I tried to suggest he keep them together but it fell on deaf ears - I don't think he's really a fossil guy, he's more of a mineral guy and I don't know how to explain to him that it's bad practice with fossils. I guess I could explain that you wouldn't sell 2 pieces of a broken ammonite separately, and it's the same with compression fossils such as insects, worms and fish. They may appear to be mirror image duplicates but there are details that are different on each half if you look close enough. They are two halves of the same organism.

  

 

I try to explain my concern, when I get the chance, that it's things like these that cause people (esp. professional paleontologists who are concerned with the science more than having an extra 'stamp' to add to one's collection) to advocate for restrictions or bans on the commercial fossil trade. I'm sure it's going to be a factor that will hurt all of us amateur collectors someday.

So how universal is my opinion and to what degree do collectors and scientists agree with this and worry about it?

I have reason to suspect it was this same V.I. dealer who found and split up a rare ophiuroid cluster that he found not far from me in Maple Bay, but I can't prove it and I won't mention his name. There is a piece of it being sold by a seller in France, with slightly incorrect info - I messaged him with the correct info, he said "thank you for the information" but still has not corrected the info in the listing. Here is the piece (not a good photo but I'm confident of its ID and provenance):

I have a smaller piece of the original plate - this one appears to be somewhat larger than what I've seen so far, but if my piece is representative, there could be many of them floating around out there. A jigsaw puzzle that will never be reassembled. This incident is well-known in the Island paleo community and has been cited as an example of why fossil sales in the province should be restricted or banned. It should have gone into a museum, but of course museums around here don't offer to buy items, only offer a tax receipt, so the finder broke it up and sold it piece by piece. At the time it was legal (and I think it still would be now) but if the guy only realized the shame in what he did... If it's the guy I think it was, he is more of a mineral guy and likely is used to splitting up chunks into more easily handled/saleable pieces. He apparently doesn't think of such an assemblage as a snapshot of the seafloor community 85 million year ago and the behaviour of this species. Just a lucky concentration, like an ore body.

 

Of course out-of-province fossils such as Moroccan and Madagascan ones are not covered by any B.C. policy.

 

I realize I'm making a good case for banning the fossil trade but I'm not advocating this. I think it's OK as long as good practices are observed, such as not splitting up things that should be kept intact, and keeping accurate information with them. Donating scientifically valuable specimens to institutions is recommended, of course, but in lieu of that, I think if the aforementioned good practices are observed, some of the negative effects of the trade will be mitigated, in the off chance that someone should find a rare item or assemblage without realizing its ID or rarity. We can't expect all dealers or collectors to know exactly what they've got, but they have some responsibility, being in the field, so we could expect them to respect all of their specimens as if they were rare. It would be helpful if Ebay, being such a big part of the market, would adopt these policies or recommendations. They have all kinds of restrictions and other policies for other kinds of items.

 

 

 

 

[Miocene_Mason]

Not an easy subject, though I guess if it were then it would be solved by now. I think the by and large, museums should offer money or some other incentives so sellers and institutions could form bonds of trust (such as the Lance Grande did with field museum and their green river quarry), the museum has a little less money, but invaluable specimens, and the seller makes his/her living. In the end the solution fits the situation, something taylored to the problem of the region. Makes me whince even thinking about such insensitivity to our planets heritage, even if ignorance was a player.

[Wrangellian]

Yes, even if ignorance was a player. Perhaps we can't hope to ever reach all collectors and dealers, and not all collectors are very discerning, but I still have a small amount of hope that we can appeal to big players such as ebay to influence things in the right direction. It's possible that, when a dealer has a truckload of items listed, when he lists each half of a split pair separately, a buyer might not notice that both halves are available, if they don't show up next to each other in the search results, and will buy one. Of course, for an item where only one half is available, it is better than nothing. But if both halves are available, they should be kept together. One half of a split pair should be viewed as an incomplete fossil.

I know, it would be nice if museums could pay for specimens, but ones such as ours have a limited budget and cannot afford to pay for things. At least they offer the tax receipt, but for people like the guy who split up this ophiuroid plate, it's quicker and more profitable to do what he did. I wish there were some way to talk sense into him, but I guess he just doesn't have that conscience.

We could talk to him in a language that he understands ($), but I need to know if I'm telling the truth thereby: Can we do a poll? "As a collector, if you saw a fossil where part and counterpart were being sold separately, and you could afford only one, not both, would you buy just one half, or neither?" If 'one half' wins the day, I'll shut up.

For the record, I prefer specimens with a little more matrix on them, if possible, not trimmed too closely (though I know a lot of collectors have space limitations, and it costs more to ship a larger piece), and preparation should be limited to matrix removal and stabilization of a specimen that is falling apart. Not coated with anything or polished or 'landscaped'. But I digress.

[ynot]

I think it is greatly dependent on the fossil. But as long as a dealer can get more by splitting them- they will split them.

[MeargleSchmeargl]

I'm not entirely sure, but isn't there a law in the books somewhere that practices like this are indeed banned? 

[Wrangellian]

9 minutes ago, MeargleSchmeargl said:

I'm not entirely sure, but isn't there a law in the books somewhere that practices like this are indeed banned? 

In what law books?

Someone show me!

[ynot]

10 minutes ago, MeargleSchmeargl said:

I'm not entirely sure, but isn't there a law in the books somewhere that practices like this are indeed banned? 

Not that I have ever heard of.

[MeargleSchmeargl]

Just now, Wrangellian said:

In what law books?

Someone show me!

I wasn't sure if this had something to do with the subject of price discrimination or not.

[jpenn]

Splitting up associated material from a single find is what grinds my gears. For example different bones from a single vertebrate find. It won't stop, for it maximizes profits, but I do not like seeing each specimen lose its context of association.

[Wrangellian]

38 minutes ago, MeargleSchmeargl said:

I wasn't sure if this had something to do with the subject of price discrimination or not.

I don't think it applies but it's just as bad, in my mind.

 

Thanks for the input, everyone, keep it coming.

[MeargleSchmeargl]

It's a bad thing on the seller's part, but the buyer can also do more to prevent split-ups. If the man is selling a split and you're interested, tell him that you will either buy the whole thing for one price or none at all. If he decides to go ahead and sell it split, leave it as a negative review on the seller and be sure to tell every buyer about their misconduct so the seller can be avoided. This will start to put market pressures on them to stop the practice. Great way to have the free market solve the problem.

[Wrangellian]

I would not buy if the seller was selling them separately and the price for the two was too high - as was the case with the guy I confronted today. If I don't buy I can't leave feedback.

I guess it's a good idea to make a lower offer for the two pieces combined, if you have any idea of what you'd offer, but then if he agreed you'd have to leave positive feedback. If you left neg feedback he might not agree to such a deal again.

My concern is when other buyers are sucked in and buy just one half, knowingly or unknowingly. We should all be vigilant for sure - keep an eye out for the other half in the other listings if it's the kind of fossil that often has another half, but not everyone thinks to do this and even I am liable to miss something!

[Ludwigia]

I surely appreciate and share your concern, but I'm afraid that the subject is so complicated and has so many different aspects (not to mention the inarticulated bones which were mentioned here) that it would be quite difficult to come up with a general regulatory formulation which would cover everything. If you view the situation objectively, only a certain percentage of these things are worth it to be scientifically pursued. If a lot of museums can't even afford to buy them, then the things are lost to posterity one way or the other, aren't they? At least they could be saved in private collections, but which collectors can afford to pay for them? These are only a couple of the many aspects that I can see. Like Whodaman says, the solution needs to fit the situation.

[LordTrilobite]

If a seller intentionally splits up two parts of the same fossil (individual or associated material) they are destroying information on purpose for financial gain and that is unethical in my opinion. Of course it can happen that a seller might not realise two fossils are two parts of the same whole for whatever reason, in which case I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

And I suppose there is a grey area of what constitutes one fossil that should remain one piece or one that can be split up. If you find a shark tooth next to a mosasaur tooth, should they be sold together, or can they be split up? I think it depends in such a case, if they add information to each other they shouldn't be split up. But if it's a seemingly random occurrence that these two fossils were found together, then they can probably be split up without any problem. But selling individual bones of the same individual animal? I think a line definitely has to be drawn there.

[Fossildude19]

I think Roger has a point - this is such a complicated issue, that there really is no pat answer to this question. 

Getting such a policy instituted on any website would probably be a long, fruitless, uphill battle.    

I wish that crusader luck.   

 

I think the responses you have received are pretty much going to be universally given in this manner.

 

Many of the things I see being sold separately are really not of scientific value. The Madacascan fish are fairly well studied, as far as I know. 

I see the issue with a scientifically important specimen, but I'm not sure that is always what is being sold. But how do you differentiate? Who does that differentiating?

 

I will often give away 1/2 of a split pair of things that I find. The stuff I find isn't scientifically important, so, I have no qualms about it.

No matter which way you cut it, when there is a buck to be made, the dollar will usually win out. (Human nature 101).

 

You can't change peoples moral or ethical compasses easily.

 

I feel it's best to not bang my head against that wall.    

 

[Sagebrush Steve]

I agree it is a tough topic.  For something like a Knightia eocaena fish from the split fish layer of the Green River, they are so common that there is little value in keeping both halves together.  And if selling them separately gets two young people interested in fossils rather than just one, that is a plus—they can both grow up to continue these same arguments on this same forum 20 years from now.  The problem comes with anything of potential scientific value.  That’s where you need to keep them together.  But how do you tell the difference?

[Plax]

Science and retail selling are two different things with different motives. I don't think there is a solution to this natural division. Both are serving their purpose as far as their adherents are concerned. I don't think there is immorality to splitting up sets if ones purpose is to enhance profitability. It may be bad science but not immoral. I should note here that I don't buy or sell fossils so perhaps I should clam up!

[Kane]

As others have said, the legal aspects are far too nuanced and complex to implement a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework. It would also set up for legal challenges in related areas of commerce, pretty much opening a Pandora's Box.  

 

Even relying on, say, government legislation to work some kind of magic to prevent this from happening is unlikely, if only because there are a large number of far more pressing issues for which legislation need be considered, be it protection of waterways and supplies, poverty alleviation, and consumer protections that have an impact on a larger portion of the populace. For government, or major auction sites, the issue is just too small potatoes - if not also creating other headaches. Relying on precedent such as prohibiting the sail of bodily fluids, for example, is an auction corporation's way of complying with the laws of the land(s). I think you'll find in most cases that restrictions on what can be sold is a reactive measure of compliance as opposed to an ethically grounded pro-active measure. Exceptions do emerge, but usually only when there is considerable media attention on an issue.

 

It may seem defeatist to not press for this, but the one very important freedom any of us who are of a particular moral position regarding this issue is simply not to support it. Vote with your feet and your wallet.  

[siteseer]

17 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

Yes, even if ignorance was a player. Perhaps we can't hope to ever reach all collectors and dealers, and not all collectors are very discerning, but I still have a small amount of hope that we can appeal to big players such as ebay to influence things in the right direction. It's possible that, when a dealer has a truckload of items listed, when he lists each half of a split pair separately, a buyer might not notice that both halves are available, if they don't show up next to each other in the search results, and will buy one. Of course, for an item where only one half is available, it is better than nothing. But if both halves are available, they should be kept together. One half of a split pair should be viewed as an incomplete fossil.

I know, it would be nice if museums could pay for specimens, but ones such as ours have a limited budget and cannot afford to pay for things. At least they offer the tax receipt, but for people like the guy who split up this ophiuroid plate, it's quicker and more profitable to do what he did. I wish there were some way to talk sense into him, but I guess he just doesn't have that conscience.

We could talk to him in a language that he understands ($), but I need to know if I'm telling the truth thereby: Can we do a poll? "As a collector, if you saw a fossil where part and counterpart were being sold separately, and you could afford only one, not both, would you buy just one half, or neither?" If 'one half' wins the day, I'll shut up.

For the record, I prefer specimens with a little more matrix on them, if possible, not trimmed too closely (though I know a lot of collectors have space limitations, and it costs more to ship a larger piece), and preparation should be limited to matrix removal and stabilization of a specimen that is falling apart. Not coated with anything or polished or 'landscaped'. But I digress.

 

Hi Wrangellian,

 

Yeah, I think there's an assumption out there that museums have a nice slush fund to buy specimens and that scientists are rich.  I know a nice museum that's struggling just to upgrade their storage cabinets, going from cheap, unprofessionally-made ones (maybe as old as the 1950's) to fire-proof metal ones.  Many paleontologists have a regular job as a doctor or teacher.  Even the ones who find a job as a geologist often end up doing work unrelated to their favorite field.  

 

Jess

 

 

[siteseer]

Wrangellian,

 

I think it was about five years ago that I noticed a dealer was selling halves of split pairs separately.  I was surprised but didn't see it as unethical. It just didn't make sense to me.  As a collector, I would want both halves especially if I was going to display them.  As has been said, one half often shows something the other doesn't.  This is because the splits are hardly ever perfect so one half has more of the specimen.  The other half might have less of the specimen but also bear something significant (i.e. an appendage or associated fossils) not preserved on the other half.

 

I asked the dealer why he was selling the halves separately.  He said collectors were asking if he would do that.  He resisted for a while but the pair went unsold for several months.  After he split the pair up, both halves sold quickly.  It appears if a pair is priced at more than say $100, and if the average collector had the option to get the best half for $60-65, he or she might do that.  I haven't been to Tucson since 2016 but what I've heard is that fewer collectors are going to the show and most of the ones that did go were looking for bargains. 

 

I still think it's weird to sell halves separately but I don't see how you legislate against it.  Ebay pretty much stopped policing auctions (unless something is too offensive) years ago to cut costs.  If you said, "Hey that's half of a split pair" and even if it were against Ebay policy and you had pretty good photographic evidence, all the seller has to say is "No, it isn't."  Is Ebay going to open a case, hire somebody to get both halves and determine if they fit together?  People break up sets in other hobbies, Why is this different?  An argument could be made in the case of a specimen determined to be of scientific value, but even then, if that specimen is legal to own and sell, how do you legally prevent the owner from selling it the way he wants to?  After all, it's perfectly legal for the individual to throw either half back in the ocean. 

 

The funny thing is that in the 90's in Mexico, and I don't know if this is still true, it was illegal to bring an ammonite into the U.S. because fossils fell under Mexico's antiquities export ban.  However, if the specimen (especially one of those big ones from Chihuahua) was sawn down the middle and polished to a shine, that made the halves legal for export as bookends. 

 

Jess

 

[piranha]

I had a couple of interesting experiences on ebay.  One involved a plant fossil purchase.  Months later after the purchase, I noticed the seller had the counterpart offered for sale.  After contacting him, he was a great businessman and sent me the counterpart free of charge, no questions asked.  The other ebay incident was a bit more complicated.  I purchased this Chinese Cretaceous fish and cockroach association, originally advertised as a split pair.  After making the payment, the seller notified me that he could only find one part.  He offered to refund half the purchase price and I would keep the fossil, or cancel the sale with a full refund.  I decided to take the deal for half price with the stipulation that the seller would contact me if the counterpart was ever to turn up.  Over a year later while searching through the ebay sold auction listings, I discovered the other half of my fossil had just been sold.  It was pure luck on my part to find it again over a year later within hours of being sold, and a minor miracle that the seller had not yet shipped it to the other guy.  The seller was quite embarrassed about this episode and promptly sent me the counterpart at no additional cost.  Talk about the one that almost got away.  Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good! 

 

[Wrangellian]

1 hour ago, piranha said:

I had a couple of interesting experiences on ebay.  One involved a plant fossil purchase.  Months later after the purchase, I noticed the seller had the counterpart offered for sale.  After contacting him, he was a great businessman and sent me the counterpart free of charge, no questions asked.  The other ebay incident was a bit more complicated.  I purchased this Chinese Cretaceous fish and cockroach association, originally advertised as a split pair.  After making the payment, the seller notified me that he could only find one part.  He offered to refund half the purchase price and I would keep the fossil, or cancel the sale with a full refund.  I decided to take the deal for half price with the stipulation that the seller would contact me if the counterpart was ever to turn up.  Over a year later while searching through the ebay sold auction listings, I discovered the other half of my fossil had just been sold.  It was pure luck on my part to find it again over a year later within hours of being sold, and a minor miracle that the seller had not yet shipped it to the other guy.  The seller was quite embarrassed about this episode and promptly sent me the counterpart at no additional cost.  Talk about the one that almost got away.  Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good! 

 

No kidding!  I'm glad that some of the sellers, at least, are that honest and it seems like a simple accident that the two halves were separated to begin with.

 

[Wrangellian]

I realize it is not realistic to hope for any sort of legislation - every country/state/province would have to be onboard for it to work. I was willing to set my sights lower, on something like a code of ethics that we could all promote, just as we promote a code of ethics for fossil hunting. That way, sellers (and hopefully collectors) will be made aware of the importance of keeping split pairs together and can use their own discretion in making that decision, and nobody has to have any sort of police going around and having to interpret some complicated law. Simpler is better - something like: "Split pairs and assemblages should be kept together as far as possible (feasible), particularly if there is any potential for scientific importance. One half of a 'mirrored' split pair is only half a fossil and will not show the same details as the other half." [The dealer I mentioned from here on the Island seemed to think that each half of the bee fossil he was selling separately were identical mirror images.] That might be enough to make some people think, and that would be better than nothing. I've made my effort in this topic, I was prepared for all the cold water being splashed all over me. I don't think anyone should go to jail for separating a pair of something, especially something common like a Knightia. The trouble is, I think, sellers are more likely to split a pair of something that is less common, because it is less common, as buyers will be willing to pay more for one half because there are so few to go around, one half being more affordable than both together and it might be their only chance to have one. The point about who decides on what is potentially scientifically important is my point exactly: the rarer stuff is more likely to be so, I think, and it's that same stuff that is more likely to be separated.

I personally will forego a fossil that I don't yet have in my collection if I see each half being sold separately. I will certainly vote with my wallet. The ebay seller I quoted above, as I explained, apparently had the pair (a Plumulites from Morocco) for sale - he didn't say for how long - then split them and is now selling them separately. I suspect the original price was lower than the combined price of the two halves now - I can't prove it, but I bet this is not a rare tactic... a somewhat lower price for one half, but a greater total profit for the seller. I'd prefer to have both pairs, but I'm not going to pay more than the original combined price.

 

Here is something from ebay that appears to be scientifically important, and thankfully the seller is selling them together! A Mississippian wormlike thing from Indiana. I can't afford it, even if I make a 'reasonable' lower offer. Hopefully someone buys it before it gets split up into separate items!

 

 

[Fossildude19]

How do you get commercial fossil dealers to comply with a "code of ethics" when the only code they adhere to is money.  

I think it is a personal decision for the buyer, and the seller, as to whether they decide to buy or sell fossil halves together or separately. 

Trying to push any agenda on commercial fossil dealers seems to me to be tilting at windmills.  
 

[Wrangellian]

Fine.