[meteorite-list] AD - A FEW DANDYS

[Rob Wesel]

Ted gave me the green light to market it as 2653 paired to 3133, it will 
make it's way into the proper annuls in time.

Rob Wesel
http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com
------------------
We are the music makers...
and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
Willy Wonka, 1971



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Weir" <dgweir at earthlink.net>
To: "Rob Wesel" <nakhladog at comcast.net>
Cc: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] AD - A FEW DANDYS


> Hi Rob,
>
> I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you or your nice ungrouped 
> primitive achondrite, but I don't see NWA 2653 listed in the new MetBull 
> Preview. In keeping with the conventions which Jeff has taught us just 
> recently, perhaps your stone would be better listed as "provisional" or 
> something similar, rather than using the term "official classification". 
> It is not official until it's published in the Bulletin. Just my thoughts.
>
> David
>
> Rob Wesel wrote:
>> Hi David
>>
>> The NAU website listed 1839 as a pairing, I will look and see now if it 
>> should be removed from the description. It sounds like it should come the 
>> publishing of MetBull #89 if the classification holds. That is easy 
>> enough to do.
>>
>> I agree with your assessment that the two classifications are mutually 
>> exclusive which is why I have it listed at the top of my page as a PUA. 
>> One can not deny, however, the fact that CV has come up as a POSSIBILITY 
>> given that O-isotopes plot on the CV mixing line. I agree, it is one or 
>> the other and for now the official classification is PUA with the very 
>> enigmatic isotope data. I don't claim it to be, though I mention the 
>> possibility several times, a CV7. It is in my opinion doubtful that any 
>> scientist will take an official position to that end, but science 
>> continues on it and perhaps one day the isotope data will be further 
>> hypothesized.
>>
>> Does my description talk in circles, yes, but the scientists that studied 
>> this and made the classification made the CV caveat.
>
>