[meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan

From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:58:17 -0500
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20080322225046.05226e10_at_usgs.gov>

The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish
announcements of new masses when they are
significant. Submit the report to the
editor. You will need good evidence that the
additional mass is really part of same fall.

jeff

At 08:39 PM 3/22/2008, Dave Gheesling wrote:
>Matt & List,
>
>First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific
>specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb.
>
>This prompts a second question, which is "Why is there not a means to
>'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a
>dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal classification has
>cleared?" I'm not talking about confusion in the early stages of mining a
>strewn field, but rather about falls and/or finds where in many cases
>decades have passed since the initial discoveries and, for all intents and
>purposes, everything that will ever be found has been found (a slippery
>slope of a generalization, but hopefully this makes sense). There are many,
>many such examples, and I'll post a link to only one below (read Remarks in
>my Djermaia listing):
>
>http://www.fallingrocks.com/Collections/Djermaia.htm
>
>I purchased my Chiang-Khan from a dealer without much research, which was
>completely my responsibility, to be clear. That said, it was marketed as
>representing something approaching 5% of the recovered material from that
>fall (which, again, is officially recorded as 367 grams when we know that
>there is one stone of almost twice that size and speculation on the list is
>that the TKW is actually likely to be near 7 kilograms). We had some banter
>about the finer points of orientation a couple of weeks ago and how that has
>an impact in the marketplace, and it seems to me that this is at least as
>large an issue. And, forgetting the market altogether, shouldn't there
>perhaps be a more focused effort to "get the record straight" for the
>benefit of history? I'm probably missing something out of ignorance here...
>
>Thanks in advance for thoughts and comments...always trying to learn
>something new.
>
>Dave
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mmorgan at mhmeteorites.com [mailto:mmorgan at mhmeteorites.com]
>Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 10:08 AM
>To: dave at fallingrocks.com; 'Martin Altmann';
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan
>
>I do have Bob's piece (main mass) in my collection, which also shows the
>brecciation. I can't recall the exact weight of the piece, but it can be
>seen on my collection page...www.mhmeteorites.com.
>It is a beautiful specimen shaped like a big jellybean.
>
>Matt Morgan
>----------------------
>Matt Morgan
>Mile High Meteorites
>http://www.mhmeteorites.com
>P.O. Box 151293
>Lakewood, CO 80215 USA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Dave Gheesling" <dave at fallingrocks.com>
>
>Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:46:43
>To:"'Martin Altmann'"
><altmann at meteorite-martin.de>,<Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan
>
>
>Martin & List,
>
>That is a terrific specimen, Martin, and thanks for sharing the image. My
>collection piece is small, but there is a cut face where some detail can be
>seen (scroll down, as it's the bottom image):
>
>http://www.fallingrocks.com/Collections/ChiangKhan.htm
>
>Sending this along as a follow-up to your mention of the interior below...
>
>Also, I believe the official TKW on this fall is 367 grams. But I seem to
>recall that Bob Haag had a single individual almost twice that size in one
>of his earlier catalogs. Does anyone have a sense for what the approximate
>total recovered weight might be?
>
>Best,
>
>Dave
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Martin
>Altmann
>Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:28 AM
>To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan
>
>And a little addendum: If cut, several Chiang Khans show a brecciation like
>Juancheng.
>
>Here an oriented example in possession of Oliver Alge, who a while ago
>investigated the fall and recovered several stones more.
>http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/f23-1.jpg
>
>Unfortunately Chiang Khan became a victim of the recent hammer-hysterogeny
>and got very expensive nowadays.
>
>Happy Easter
>Martin
>
>
>-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von
>bernd.pauli at paulinet.de
>Gesendet: Samstag, 22. M?rz 2008 14:03
>An: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>Betreff: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan
>
>Yagi K. et al. (1987) Petrology and Magnetic Properties Of Chiang
>Khan, Thailand, Meterorite (Meteoritics 22-4, 1987, pp. 536-537):
>
>Chiang Khan meteorite fell on Nov. 17, 1981 at Chiang Khan, Loei, Thailand.
>The meteorite consists of olivine, orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene, chromite,
>FeNi
>metal, plagioclase, glass, troilite, and phosphate in order of abundance.
>Olivine always forms barred or porphyritic chondrules. Its composition is
>very
>homogeneous with an average of Fo80, which is very close to the average com-
>position of olivine of equilibrated H chondrites (Van Schmus, 1969).
>Orthopyro-
>xene usually forms radiating chondrules as fibrous crystals, whereas
>clinopyroxene
>is much less, occurring as fibrous crystals in the devitrified glass or
>minute crystals
>in the rim of orthopyroxene. Both orthopyroxene and clinopyroxene have
>compositions
>similar to those of these pyroxenes of equilibrated H chondrites (Van
>Schmus, 1969).
>Ca-poor pyroxene is nearly always orthopyroxene and clinoenstatite is almost
>absent.
>Plagioclase is present as microcrystalline aggregates only in a groundmass
>of chondrules.
>Chondrules are present, showing their textures well, but their outlines are
>often not clear.
>Glass is more or less devitrified, resulting in aggregates of fibrous or
>microcrystals.
>The composition of these aggregates is similar to that of Ca-rich pyroxene +
>albitic
>plagioclase.
>When compositions of chromite are plotted in a diagram Mg/(Mg +Fe) vs. Al/
>(Al + Cr),
>all of them fall in the field of H chondrites (Bunch et al., 1967). From
>these features the
>meteorite is classified as an equilibrated chondrite of H5 type (Van Schmus
>and Wood, 1967).
>Water content and magnetic properties were measured.
>
>Bunch T.E., Keil K., and Snetsinger K.G. (1967) GCA 31, 1569-1582.
>Van Schmus (1969) Earth Sci. Rev. 5, 145-184.
>Van Schmus WR. and Wood J.A. (1967) GCA 31, 747-765.
>
>______________________________________________
>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
>
>______________________________________________
>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

Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA
Received on Sat 22 Mar 2008 11:58:17 PM PDT