[meteorite-list] Possible New "BL" Meteorite - Plus someother cutephotos

From: tett <tett_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 22:02:26 -0500
Message-ID: <002301c8348f$c547bdc0$6401a8c0_at_tett1>

John,

Are you sending more 1685 to Bathurst?

I am hoping that Phil McCausland will be getting some results soon. I think
he now has more time to look at this stuff.

I was very impressed when I saw the centre piece in Meteorite magazine.
Beautiful and inspiring.

Cheers,

Mike Tettenborn


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kashuba" <mary.kashuba at verizon.net>
To: "'dean bessey'" <deanbessey at yahoo.com>;
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Possible New "BL" Meteorite - Plus someother
cutephotos


> Dean,
>
> It's too bad that we missed another chance to find out about those
> fine-grained inclusions that are so prominent in the original "BL", NWA
> 1658. I see they aren't mentioned in the classifications of NWA 2826 or
> 2053 either.
>
> This week I will be sending several samples to Bathurst to try your new
> classification service on behalf of several collectors. One of these
> finds
> contains the occasional dual lithology piece. We will be providing an
> excellent cut and polished sample so that the research facility will be
> sure
> to include both in their classification.
>
> Regards,
>
> - John
>
> John Kashuba
> Ontario, California
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of dean
> bessey
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 2:04 PM
> To: PolandMET; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Possible New "BL" Meteorite - Plus some
> other
> cutephotos
>
> --- PolandMET <marcin at polandmet.com> wrote:
>> Dean
>> You have the same as my NWA 2826 LL5 (aka NWA 2053
>> and many others)
>> This is very good material, fresh, with many
>> interesting inclusions, visible
>> chondrules (thats why it should be LL5 not LL6) and
>> very very large
>> troilites (well visible on photos at rusty spots)
>>
> I think that you have just pointed out a problem in
> general with classifying meteorites.
> The piece that I sent in for classification wasnt
> nearly as nice as the larger cut in my photo. I didnt
> realize that it was so nice until yesterday when I
> started cutting it up. If I had used a different
> sample I would probably have gotten the different
> classification.
> Sincerely
> DEAN
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ________
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sat 01 Dec 2007 10:02:26 PM PST