|
Roll Overs:
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
|
|
See below. n/a
Anonymous writes:
Submitted for your pleasure and opinion. What is this "little stone"?
A stone of unknown classification found in the U.S.A. in the last year.
I am not the finder of this stone. The finder of this stone had only been hunting meteorites for a few weeks when he made this recovery. Although he had limited first-hand experience with meteorites, he realized that this stone was not a chondrite. He was also enough of a realist to understand that it would be more than exceptional "beginner's luck" to find an achondrite. He realized that it would require exceptional evidence to support that claim. So, he sought-out the help of experts.
The finder had been told by several fellow meteorite-hunters that this specimen was not a meteorite. After a few more weeks of surfing the Internet comparing his find to images of meteorites that were similar-looking, he was convinced that he needed to contact some professionals at a university. But he quickly became discouraged after being told that his little stone probably wasn't worth the expense that it would cost him to get it classified. The finder, who was a professional but in an unrelated field, was very discouraged to see how his counter-parts in the meteoritic discipline were so disinterested with potential American meteorite finds.
By the time the finder contacted me, all I could tell him was that in order to win over the skeptics and to entice the scientists, he would need to cut a type- specimen from his little stone, and ultimately, to make a thin-section. I offered to help him in that endeavor.
The thin-section was cheaply made, so admittedly, it is not the best quality. But, the finder wanted to get the reader's opinions before troubling the university to use its petrographic microscope. The thin-section is sufficient to show the ophitic fabric of highly fractured plagioclase lathes set in a matrix of pyroxene crystals. Is there any visual evidence that would confirm that this stone is NOT a meteorite?
Personally, I would not submit an "Unknown" to the MPOD, but I feel this finder has made the proper effort and done the requisite work in order to qualify for showing his stone here. Regardless of the outcome, I promise to post here the actual results of its "classification".
Click to view larger photos #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
|
| |
v2
8/27/2016 6:33:14 PM |
It looks like anorthite gabbro no meteorite ball, but the most likely to be "Granite", Globe igneous rocks. If you are in the cutting surface of the stone, they found a black mineral (similar pyroxene) have reflected light situation, then it may be a mineral biotite, that stone would not be meteorites.
In addition, the cutting surface of the stone, to see the traces of metal oxide rusty, I think there might be Earth gabbro. |
Jon Taylor
8/27/2016 9:01:52 AM |
Looks like it could be a weathered eucrite but I'm certainly no expert. You will have to get it classified if you really want to know the answer. |
Anon
8/27/2016 12:32:12 AM |
The interior in photo 4 looks similar to eucrite NWA 2050.
|
Denis gourgues
8/26/2016 1:17:40 PM |
Aubrite........... ? |
John Divelbiss
8/26/2016 11:26:53 AM |
as an avid "rock hound" I always get excited when something I have seems like it could be a possible achondrite. I have received such stones in some of the batches of meteorites I got from Morocco through dealers. In this particular case I guess I too would have "some" hope, like the finder has for this being a possible meteorite. But the overall look does NOT look meteoritic to me. Though we all know there are ungrouped meteorites that look like no other meteorite. Finally, Photo 5 to me looks like it could have quartz in it. So far that has been a killer to rocks being meteoritic. |
Andy Tomkins
8/26/2016 4:51:19 AM |
It's easy enough to look for shock features with a petrographic microscope; almost all meteorites show at least some shock features. Also most eucrites have some trace metal particles, they would be a giveaway. Terrestrial dolerite is highly likely, eucrite can't be ruled out by these photos in my opinion. Any reason to think it's a meteorite (there's no fusion crust) - perhaps found in an area where there could not possibly be any igneous rocks? |
Ingo Herkstroeter
8/26/2016 3:37:39 AM |
Dolerite - which means terrestrial - is my guess. |
Graham Ensor
8/26/2016 3:23:26 AM |
Classification can be done here for no cost...just send the 20g or 20%...looks like it's worth a try to me. |
John Humphries
8/26/2016 3:22:22 AM |
Very interesting and thanks for posting |
James Shorten
8/26/2016 2:13:55 AM |
It looks to me like a form of Feldspar, Quartz Diorite. Wouldn't quartz exclude a meteorite ???
|
Anon.
8/26/2016 2:04:17 AM |
Nice achondrite, probably a eucrite. |
| |