[meteorite-list] Ad: North American meteorite - San Bernardino Wash (L5)

[Robert Verish]

Yes Jason, 
I agree, they definitely look different. 
But what has me puzzled is something that is not all that apparent in our images.  The exterior of our two stones.
Your stone has a very well-preserved exterior (even though your interior is a uniformly-colored W3), whereas, 
my exterior (which is not visible in the image) is gone, actually eroded. Yet somehow, my stone's interior 
is less weathered than your stone (my stone was classified as "W1"). 
I wonder, if the interior of my stone were to weather to a "W3", just how much it would look like your stone?


But, to directly answer your question, I would have to refer you to my latest Meteorite-Times article:  
http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2014/jan14.htm 
for my description of how a cluster of obviously-paired fragments found at SBW had such a variation in "looks", 
that it prompted me to sample a number of them and to actually have two of those fragments classified. 
For your convenience, I'll show them here: 

Pinto Mountains --     (L6 S3 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.3% n=16; low-Ca pyroxene Fs20.3Wo1.5 n=17)-- 1955 stone
San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W3 Fa24.6+/-0.6% (n=7) -- (UCLA type-specimen) -- 2010 stone
San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% (n=24)                        -- 2012A fragment
San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.4% (n=14)                        -- 2012B fragment 


This just might be a case of (very) micro-environments acting immediate to where each fragment is found, that is causing all of these differences.

I'm open to any and all other explanations, 
Bob V.   





On Monday, January 20, 2014 2:48 PM, Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Bob, All,
>Just home from a hunt, haven't had the opportunity to reply until now.
>I don't have photos of the other stone/fragments, but I do have a few
>photos of SBW#1 on hand:
>
>http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/DSCN7095.jpg
>
>http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/DSCN7101.jpg
>
>http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/comparison.jpg
>
>Is there any evidence for pairing beyond "equilibrated L?"  As you can
>see, that slice looks a bit different.
>Regards,
>Jason
>
>www.fallsandfinds.com
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> For those collectors with an interest in North American meteorites,
>> I would like to bring your attention to an eBay offering (ending soon) of a classified find from the California Mojave Desert:
>> San Bernardino Wash (L5)
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/221353605398
>>
>>
>> This under-appreciated meteorite promises to become better-known now that
>> additional field-work and research results are starting to appear on the Internet:
>>
>> https://www.google.com/#q=San+Bernardino+Wash+L5+meteorite+strewn-field
>>
>> Although the study of this area is too early to determine the possible TKW of this meteorite,
>> it certainly will not rival Gold Basin (L4/6), but it promises to be the next "Trilby Wash".
>> The specimens that I am offering are the remaining slices from the samples used to determine pairing.
>> These two classifications confirmed their pairing to the SBW(L5) type-specimen held at UCLA.
>> I will only be offering additional specimens for auction until the cost of this lab-work has been defrayed.
>> But, as usual, I will continue to accept requests for samples by any interested researchers.
>>
>> Thank you for your interest,
>> Bob V.
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>______________________________________________
>
>Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
>
>