Graham Macleod
3/1/2016 5:21:30 PM |
WOW Larry,
Congratulations on this find M8!
What would cause this amount of caliche?
Still learning Lol. |
Bob Verish
3/1/2016 3:38:22 AM |
Your right, John. Except that it started before the Nevada finds. Outcome of the big discussion was a statement from the NomCom that Gold Basin was going to be "reclassified" to L4-6 but that never happened. I realize that the Nevada finds are "not a separate fall". But everytime I see them called "Gold Basin L4", I have to goad the system into resolving this issue. |
Larry Atkins
2/29/2016 12:25:06 PM |
Research will begin in the up coming weeks and with any luck we answer a lot of questions. |
John Divelbiss
2/29/2016 10:42:58 AM |
Bob...wasn't there some kind of statement/discussion, or movement towards classifying Gold Basin as a L4-6 ? I think I read this after the recent Nevada finds. Or is that just a way to bridge these finds into one field? |
Ben Fisler
2/29/2016 9:15:50 AM |
Must be a separate fall, huh. Not! I think the caliche gives it character, and besides, any agent that might remove the caliche, might also remove meteorite......
Just sayin'....... |
Graham
2/29/2016 4:26:33 AM |
Interesting to see all that caliche.. |
Lamont Wells
2/29/2016 1:38:56 AM |
Nevada-side "Gold Basin" (L6) !! |
Bob Verish
2/29/2016 1:32:48 AM |
To Larry Atkins credit, he got one of his Nevada-side "Gold Basin" finds classified, but the problem is - it came back as L6 - so, until someone gets funding to do a pairing study, it can't be officially paired to Gold Basin (L4). Until that happens, this will be another case of "self-" or "consensus-pairing" from that DCA.
BTW - unless Larry is going to cut this specimen, I vote to dissolve the caliche. Who knows what lurks underneath? |
Paul G
2/29/2016 1:10:26 AM |
that's cool, haven't seen anything quite like that before. |
| |