[meteorite-list] Fwd: Ad: North American meteorite - San Bernardino Wash (L5)
Jason Utas
meteoritekid at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 21:14:55 EST 2014
Hello Bob, All,
We were thorough. The type specimen consisted of a slice and end-cut
from 1) the first stone, and 2) the largest fragment from the second
cluster. We took samples of each. The two cut stones looked
~identical, inside and out (-- and unlike your stone). All of the
smaller fragments looked ~the same, and, yes, rather different from
the fragment pictured in the Picture of the Day or the slice you sold
on Ebay. I don't have the stones at my apartment, but will post some
photos on our website at some point in the near future.
>Why is it, now, incumbent upon me to submit a request to the NomCom for SBWash 002 and for the formation of a DCA?
Because, to quote you, "I agree, they definitely look different." Of
course, there's no requirement that you get your new find(s)
classified; that is entirely up to you. We haven't had ~99% of our
finds classified. They're ordinary chondrites and there's just no
point.
You do go on to say in your new email that "they DO look similar. I
only agreed that they weathered differently."
That's "definitely" not what you said at first, but let's assume you
misspoke. Your stone looks different. The exterior looks friable and
weathered, and the interior looks porous and fresh. You can't account
for additional porosity with weathering (typically) unless you oxidize
and remove most of the metal, producing vugs. Since the more porous
rock is the fresh one, I think we can safely say that this isn't the
case. And porous meteorites tend to weather more quickly than less
porous ones.
Sure, it's not a laboratory analysis, but any experienced meteorite
collector could tell you as much. Since this is all somewhat
qualitative, I would simply point out that there is discord amongst
experts, and the prudent thing to do is to get the stone analyzed.
That said, I'm currently selling some fragments of NWA 7034 on our
website. I still don't have analytical data on any of them. I
clearly state this on my website. I also purchased the fragments from
a prominent and well-regarded Moroccan meteorite dealer as NWA 7034,
and the pieces came from a larger fragmented find that has been
analyzed and submitted by the person who purchased it. And they look
identical to the known finds, which are a distinctive off-black
breccia with white/light clasts and nearly unique spherical
inclusions.
Some dealers harped at me for selling it without getting a piece
analyzed, but do you know what no one did? No one said they looked
different. Because they look like NWA 7034. It was also the highest
price per gram I've ever paid for a meteorite, by ~800%, but that
doesn't prove anything.
> my fragments (which come from a single, several meter-wide patch
formed by a splatter-impact) DO LOOK LIKE all the other stones
recovered from the San Bernardino Wash.
Since I don't think you've seen the exterior of our specimens, I find
this statement highly presumptive. Regardless, it is incorrect.
There's always the slight possibility that we're dealing with a
heterogeneous L-breccia like Gold Basin, but...prudence.
I will disagree on one other thing. A mistake has been made.
Personally 'pairing' distinctive stones that come from the same place
and look identical is one thing (e.g. Jbilet Winselwan, Taza, NWA
7325, etc.), but you sold a slice of a meteorite that doesn't *appear*
to be paired to a given meteorite -- as that particular meteorite.
Since at least two other distinct chondrites have been found in the
area (Zulu Queen/Dale Dry Lake and Pinto Mountains), that seems odd to
me. And it's against Meteoritical Bulletin pairing guidelines, but
you've ignored the repeated references I've made to those, so I guess
I'll stop pointing it out.
Choose to get your finds analyzed or don't, as you prefer, but I
wouldn't try to justify self-pairing meteorites that don't look to be
paired. Regardless of guidelines, common sense should come into play.
Since no one else is chiming in, it's hard to say whose view is
prevalent, but I have the feeling that most would err on the side of
caution in this case. If nothing else, one couldn't be blamed for it.
FYI, I think folks are going to start complaining about this thread soon...
Regards,
Jason
www.fallsandfinds.com
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Apparently, you’re not the only one confused. I’ve been discussing this topic with some
> other people and they find this confusing, as well, and all have the same question:
> Why did the NomCom give you 1 name, instead of numbering each of the stones that Bob Perkins, Gary Crabtree,
> and Fred Mason found? These were all recovered over a wide area inside the San Bernardino Wash.
>
> I’m not saying that you did anything wrong (in fact, in my article I praised your informative submission to the Meteoritical Bulletin),
> and it is probably unfair to ask you a question about the NomCom and why they
> didn’t require that a DCA be formed, but it certainly does beg the question:
> What is the evidence that the first 3 or 4 stones are actually paired, and why
> did the NomCom not follow those very policy guidelines that you quoted earlier?
>
> Why is it, now, incumbent upon me to submit a request to the NomCom for SBWash 002 and for the formation of a DCA?
>
> Particularly, when they DO look similar. I only agreed that they weathered differently.
> I still contend that all of my fragments (which come from a single, several meter-wide patch
> formed by a splatter-impact) DO LOOK LIKE all the other stones recovered from the San Bernardino Wash.
> Among all of these splatter-fragments there was only one that weathered differently and “looked fresher” (on the inside).
>
> If you look at today’s MPOD you can see an image of a slice from that fresher looking fragment -
> http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=1/23/2014&WYD=
>
> And if you look at the “rollover photo”, I contend that, if the interior of the slice depicted were to weather
> just a little bit more and be a uniform orange-brown color, it would look just like the interior of your specimen
> (assuming it is one of the Crabtree stones that was classified).
>
> Again, I’m not saying that either of us have done anything “wrong”. In fact, I find very little, in principle
> that we are in disagreement. But I must admit to being curious how the NomCom would respond if I were to submit
> my two classifications.
>
> With best regards,
> Bob V.
>
>
>> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:45 AM, Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello Bob,
>> I'm confused. I addressed that. You're saying that, because
>> they're
>> L5's, they are paired, despite the fact that they look different?
>>
>> Over 1/10 meteorites found is "L5." Seriously. Almost 5,000 approved
>> meteorites are L5s, out of ~48,000 total approved meteorites. If you
>> find a meteorite and you keep looking, there's a ~1/10 chance that the
>> next (new) meteorite you find will be an L5.
>>
>> The requirements are clear. "...[A] single (collective) name may be
>> given in cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking
>> fragments are found within a few meters of each other."
>>
>> "[S]imilar-looking fragments are found within a few meters of each
>> other."
>>
>> I don't really understand why you'd try to claim a pairing. Could
>> they be paired? Maybe. If you're arguing for the *possibility,* I
>> won't argue with you. There's a very small, but indisputable, chance.
>> Seems illogical to hedge your bet on it since they look so different,
>> though.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>> www.fallsandfinds.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I started to write a reply but then I realized that I was just repeating
>>> what I wrote earlier.
>>> So, I'll just reprint it here:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 'Nuff said.
>>> Bob V.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:51 PM, Jason Utas
>> <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Helo Bob, All,
>>>
>>>> I agree, they definitely look different.
>>>
>>> 'Nuff said. You could assume "microclimates," but I
>> wouldn't start
>>> putting forth a hypothesis like that without something substantial
>>> like argon data to tie the two stones together. The Meteoritical
>>> Bulletin is clear on pairing:
>>>
>>> http://meteoriticalsociety.org/?page_id=59
>>>
>>> a) Level of scrutiny. Sequential names comprising a prefix and numeric
>>> suffix will be given to new meteorites without checking for possible
>>> pairings, although a single (collective) name may be given in cases
>>> where fragments fit together or similar-looking fragments are found
>>> within a few meters of each other.
>>>
>>> b) Pairing groups. Two or more newly discovered meteorites in dense
>>> collection areas may be considered paired with each other or with
>>> another formally named meteorite if there is overwhelming evidence,
>>> including geographic data, that is consistent with the meteorites
>>> being part of a single fall. The evidence must be evaluated by the
>>> Committee. All approved members of a pairing group will be named with
>>> a geographic prefix plus a number in the same way as are unpaired
>>> meteorites; special type-specimen requirements will apply to newly
>>> paired meteorites (section 7.1f). If two or more numbered meteorites
>>> with formal names are subsequently determined to be paired, their
>>> names should not be changed. Pairing groups may be referred to
>>> collectively by the lowest specimen number, the most widely studied
>>> mass number or the largest mass number (e.g., the EET 87711 pairing
>>> group).
>>>
>>> To emphasize the important part, "a single (collective) name may be
>>> given in cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking
>>> fragments are found within a few meters of each other."
>>>
>>> They look different and weren't found within meters; the necessary
>>> evidence clearly isn't there. Anything else is guesswork.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Robert Verish
>> <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>
More information about the Meteorite-list
mailing list