[meteorite-list] NWA 869

From: Jeff Kuyken <info_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Jun 14 04:06:40 2005
Message-ID: <002d01c570b8$0dbbec00$54578b90_at_mandin4f89ypwu>

I'd tend to go with Bernd's earlier observation that it should probably
include type 3. I have the small main mass of NWA 1266 which I felt after it
arrived, may be paired with NWA 869. It is classified as L3-6 and the
weathering, shock & Fa all pretty much match 869. In fact, I would not be
surprised if there were literally DOZENS of 869's out there, inadvertently
classified under other numbers.

Cheers,

Jeff Kuyken
I.M.C.A. #3085
www.meteorites.com.au


----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Pringle
To: Dave Freeman mjwy
Cc: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] RE: NWA 869


Dave & list -

>handle a few kilo's of 869, and you will get the idea. It just seems
>that if you want to get 'NWA 869' out of the garbage can and into the Met.
>Bulletin, *somebody* has to articulate what makes one slightly weathered,
>brecciated L4-6 'NWA 869', and another one not - since it's sold by every
>meteorite middleman out there (and half the time as 'unclassified'), it'd
>be interesting to see how everyone's lists of features match up, too, don't
>you think?

The main thing specifically mentioned on 869 sale pages is occasional 'dark
inclusions' - surely there are other diagnostic features?

Several websites claim it is 'paired with' or 'sold as' NWA 787, NWA 900 -
"and other numbers" - how many others? Which ones? This list might be the
best place to gather that information, or determine that what everyone has
been calling NWA 869 is actually NWA something else, already classified with
an erroneous TKW.

Or is that a can of chondrules not to be opened?



Jeff

______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Tue 14 Jun 2005 04:07:01 AM PDT