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

[tett]

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

>