[meteorite-list] NWA 869

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

Jeff G. wrote:
"It was a fragmental breccia, probably
L4-6.  A  thin section of L5 material gave Fa24.2, S3, W1."

Mark B. thinks:
The lighters parts of the meteorite do not show nice abundent  
chondrules in a thin section from what I have seen.  (To make the L3.8  as 
some have been selling it.)  Despite what it looks like in a hand  specimen.  
The darker parts of the meteorite is a shocked portion of  the lighter part.

Colleagues, some of you could really give the scientists a run for  their 
money - I personally can't even tell the difference from the outside (and  don't 
cut nor have computerized inventories) between a lot of NWA 869 I saw and  
Sahara 02500, L3, Fa = 26% +/- 2%, S2, W1 Met Bul. 88, big strewn field, many  
stones.  
 
It looks like the Sahara 02500 researchers and suppliers, for example, on  
the other hand, have done a fantastic job keeping the stock clean for 2500, but  
given all the fingers in the pot for NWA 869 it is hard to imagine the  same. 
 How could NWA 869 be assigned a weight and name based on this,  technically, 
by NomCom rules?  I am confused but hope it is possible since  a lot has not 
all been classified in accordance to the dense desert  protocol.  Could the 
characteristic greenish tinge be used as an  exceptional and unique defining 
characteristic of NWA 869, and treat this  exception as if it were a non-dense 
fall?  Why not, if it can be truly  shown to be unique nomenclature should 
accomodate logic...on such a grand  scale.  What, exactly causes the 
characteristic: environment or  unique composition is an important question?  This would be 
the angle  great to be hearing more.  But then, if we go that route - I would  
think it should have a real alphabet soup name to be more consistent with 
this  type of nominative exception and what to do if it has already been 
classified by  another number  Good luck Jeff, with this usually very exquisite and  
sensitive meteorite(s).
Saludos, Doug