[meteorite-list] Point of Diminishing returns (Slice thickness)?

From: Michael Gilmer <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:24:08 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimHwcOQvbEnSXi3fUvtgUDf2WBUieqP6Amcyc0Z_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hi Richard,

I lack the skills and equipment to produce paper thin slices. I have
only seen a few slices less than 1mm thick that were not too fragile
to handle. As a collector, my preference for thick versus thin varies
from specimen to specimen and type to type. Some types I would prefer
a thin slice that shows lots of surface features - like an expensive
brecciated fall or a pallasite. Other times, I would want a thick
slice with a complete rim of fusion crust along the edge. So I don't
have a strong preference one way or the other.

A while back, I purchased a thin slice of a Martian. It was paper
thin and certainly less than 1mm, and it was almost transparent. In a
membrane box, I could hold it up to a bright light, and it would glow
beautifully.

As a cutter, if I am using a super-thin .006" blade, the amount of
cutting loss is negligible to start with, so making thin slices is not
so much a matter of loss as it is labor and precision. Super-thin
slices tend to break easily, either during cutting or during polishing
afterwards. The vast majority of my slices are 1mm or thicker - I have
a poor track record with trying to make the very thin cuts.

Best regards,

MikeG

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gilmer - Galactic Stone & Ironworks Meteorites

Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
News Feed - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone
EOM - http://www.encyclopedia-of-meteorites.com/collection.aspx?id=1564
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


On 3/7/11, Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com> wrote:
> These discussions about aesthetics of specimens vs their weight is rather
> interesting, but it seems the lines of the subject are a bit blurred.
>
> It seems the subject has come to comparing fragments to slices. I'm not sure
> this is a fair comparison, but I understand it.
>
> I am wondering what others think represents a point of diminishing returns
> in making a slice paper thin. IOW at what point does cutting losses become
> too great to make the aesthetic function of the prep & price excessive?
>
> I guess I don't understand the desire for some ultra-thin prepped specimens.
> For example, if a ultra-thin 1mm thick slice is being sold for the
> equivalent $80 per gram, and a slice of the exact same material, the exact
> same size, but 4 times the weight (4mm thick) is being offered at the exact
> same price, I'd be inclined to purchase the latter.
>
> I understand the appeal of of thinner specimens and of course you can polish
> a slice so finely it becomes a thin section, but is there some point where
> the prep becomes so costly that is is in fact "too thin" for the buyer?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --
> Richard Kowalski
> Full Moon Photography
> IMCA #1081
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>

--

Received on Mon 07 Mar 2011 06:24:08 PM PST