Paul Swartz
12/3/2016 6:01:50 PM |
I'm impressed! Changes made here. |
MexicoDoug
12/3/2016 12:17:34 PM |
Mendy you are really reputable, a gentleman, and a great scientist, too. This is an (uncommonly acquired) superbly prepared large full slice which must be such a treat to see in person. Large grain size and contrast matrix makes it a really interesting eucrite. Also high in titanium which for me conjures images of a mining base and space-faring outpost to be built based on Vesta one of these days ;-) |
Mendy Ouzillou IMCA#8395
12/3/2016 11:48:20 AM |
Well so much for 100%!
Doug,
You are absolutely correct.
Steve Witt handled that second stone and I had not updated my records to reflect that the classification had to be split for the two stones. Based on visual observations, there was at the time a (small) concern that they may be different. Final classification did prove that these were the same and thus paired, even though 7989 is listed as a polymict eucrite and the 8588 as an eucrite. So, my apologies to you.
To be very clear, this mixup is my fault and I will update Suzanne and other clients as well. The website has already been updated as well to reflect the updated information.
Thank you for the keen eye!
|
John Divelbiss
12/3/2016 11:34:07 AM |
MetBul says Mendy holds the 7689 mass from 510 g stone |
Mendy Ouzillou IMCA#8395
12/3/2016 10:40:55 AM |
I am the main mass holder of NWA 7989 and I am the one who provided this material to Suzanne. So, it is 100% NWA 7989. |
Paul Swartz
12/3/2016 10:31:10 AM |
MexicoDoug - can you provide details on why you believe this is NWA 7989 rather than 8588? |
Wilford Krantz
12/3/2016 9:54:32 AM |
Amazing meteorite. |
MexicoDoug
12/3/2016 9:52:33 AM |
It NWA 8588! This is not NWA 7989!
It is likely paired to 7989, 8036, 8056, 8174, 8365, etc.
A great looking slice that would make a great highly polished counter-top! Imaged in really bright, hot lighting, too. Thanks Suzanne |
John Hope
12/3/2016 2:38:55 AM |
Spectacular, thank you for sharing Suzanne. |
| |