[meteorite-list] ebay auctions-

From: E.L.Jones <jonee_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:42:03 2004
Message-ID: <3A6E5A3C.C456F891_at_epix.net>

Hello Mark, Rett, List
The second item may be meteoritic -- based on appearance IMH But Experienced
Opinion
It could be pocket worn or tumbled but the regmaglypts are hard to simulate.

There is nothing about the first item which resembles any meteoritic material I
have ever seen. The description itself indicates that in his or her heart the
seller doesn't believe that this is a meteorite.--Hardly worth discussing.
As to your questions...
1. Etching and magnetic attraction go a long way as exclusion tests. Some
nickel content and there is a field test for that in Norton. Metallurgy should
show a nickel content between what? 5 and 15% give or take.

2. Item one is a man made artifact --10,000+ to one odds
    Item two is probably a meteorite based on appearance but is not necessarily
from NZ...
But if this is fusion crust it is fresh which makes it unlikely to be a tumbled
stone like Henbury or Silkote-Alin
Based on the photograph I could not exclude this as a bona fide meteorite.
Regards,
Elton

Mam602_at_aol.com wrote:

> Five dollars for both and I will promise they will not end up as door stops.
>
> Seriously I want ask a question and I am really new at this so do not hammer
> me.
> As unlikely as it seems to me that these are meteorites I have two questions:
>
> 1. Are there no easily done tests with simple acids, electrical or other
> means that he could use to better substantiate his claim, or that someone
> could request he perform as an indication?
>
> 2. And as well educated as the majority of the list is in Meteorites, If the
> concensus is that they are not real, How likely is it that this may been a
> type yet undiscovered?
>
> His statement is confusing, Water doesn't stick to a magnet, and it conducts
> electricity.
>
> Thanks in advanced.....Mark
Received on Tue 23 Jan 2001 11:30:39 PM PST