Meteorite Times Magazine

Meteorite Times Magazine Contents

by Editor

Featured Articles Accretion Desk by Martin Horejsi Jim’s Fragments by Jim Tobin Meteorite Market Trends by Michael Blood Bob’s Findings by Robert Verish Micro Visions by John Kashuba Norm’s Tektite Teasers by Norm Lehrman Mr. Monning’s Collection by Anne Black IMCA Insights by The IMCA Team Meteorite of the Month by Editor Tektite of the Month by Editor

Terms Of Use Materials contained in and linked to from this website do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of The Meteorite Exchange, Inc., nor those of any person connected therewith. In no event shall The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. be responsible for, nor liable for, exposure to any such material in any form by any person or persons, whether written, graphic, audio or otherwise, presented on this or by any other website, web page or other cyber location linked to from this website. The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. does not endorse, edit nor hold any copyright interest in any material found on any website, web page or other cyber location linked to from this website.

The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. shall not be held liable for any misinformation by any author, dealer and or seller. In no event will The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. be liable for any damages, including any loss of profits, lost savings, or any other commercial damage, including but not limited to special, consequential, or other damages arising out of this service. © Copyright 2002–2014 The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. All rights reserved.

No reproduction of copyrighted material is allowed by any means without prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Meteorite Times Magazine Borodino: A Rock for the Ages Martin Horejsi

The Borodino meteorite takes its name f rom the town of Borodino, Russia. Two days af ter the meteorite’s f all, the hamlet also extended its name to to the immensely bloody “Battle of Borodino.” For this installment of The Accretion Desk, I would like you do download and listen to the linked music f ile of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture while reading this story.

Link: Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky_-_1812_overture.ogg

The crusted portion of my f ragment of Borodino was witness to a terrible battle where over 70,000 men lost their lives a mere 48 hours af ter the meteorite’s f all.

The fall of the Borodino meteorite is historically signif icant on many f ronts including the f ront lines of war. On September 5th, 1812, as Napoleon was marching towards Moscow, a small stone f ell f rom the sky landing near a Russian artillery battery just outside the village of Gorki. The battery Commander, named A. L. Dietrichs, was an of f icer in the 11th Pskov inf antry regiment of Lieutenant General Kaptsevich’s 7th Inf antry Division. Dietrichs was given the stone by a sentry who picked it up shortly af ter its f all.

The matrix of Borodino is much less eventf ul than the war that raged all around Borodino, both the town and the meteorite.

After the battle, and f or the next 80 years the Borodino meteorite remained in the Dietrichs’ f amily. In 1892 the descendants of A. L. Dietrichs presented the stone to the Museum of Mines in Leningrad who later provided it to the Russian Academy of Sciences. For clarif ication, Saint Petersburg was f ounded by Peter the Great in 1703, and was renamed Petrograd in 1914, then renamed Leningrad ten years later in 1924. That name held until 1991 when the name of Russia’s “Cultural Capitol” once again would be known as Saint Petersburg, Russia.

The Borodino meteorite’s weight is much greater as a historical event than a rock f rom space. At only 500 grams or a little over one pound, the Borodino H5 chondrite in its roughly egg-shaped initial f orm would have been of little nuisance when carried in the pocket of a wool battle coat. Especially considering the other distractions.

A tremendous battle took place on September 7th, 1812 between Napoleon’s French Grande Armée and the Imperial Russian Army of General Mikhail Kutuzov. Over a quarter-million troops f ought that day. More than 70,000 men lost their lives in battle with many more dying shortly af ter due to injury or starvation making it the bloodiest single f ight of the French invasion of Russia

The Battle of Borodino was the turning point in the war. Napoleon lost a third of his men, and the French lost their momentum and began their retreat. Much commemoration of the Battle of Borodino, also known as the Battle of 1812, was written, painted, and put to musical score. One of the most f amous commemorations, and one we of ten hear at least once a year in America on the 4th of July is Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky f amous 1812 Overture complete with canon f ire. Tchaikovsky wrote the Overture in 1880 but it was not publicity pref ormed f or two years. As you might imagine, the logistics of 16 muzzle-loaded artillery detonations during a musical score is a logistical nightmare.

In 1969, A. K. Stanyukovich chased down some loose ends in the Borodino meteorite story. In 1973, NASA published a translation into English under the title of , “Where and when did the Borodino meteorite f all?� It’s short and worth a read. Here is the link to the e-zine f ormatted article. http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/4482794/where-and-when-did-borodino-meteorite-f all

From a historical meteorite collecting standpoint, there are f ew peers to Borodino. In the rarif ied air of f amous historic witnessed f alls, the backstory, culture, world events, and chain of custody all play a signif icant role in the meteoritically spiritual value of a stone. Somehow the Borodino meteorite made it of f the bloodiest battlef ield in the Napoleonic Wars, through eight decades of f amily curation, f inally landing the hands of science.

Battlefield souvenirs are a controversial issue. I will never question the decision of someone who was actually there, but saving a rock when so many lost their lives transmits a rare but necessary responsibility onto the meteorite collector. A tremendous ef f ort was put into preserving the Borodino meteorite. And every keeper of such treasures has the responsibility to honor those who died in the battle that gave f ame to a meteorite now in their posession.

Although the specimen of Borodino in my collection is small at a little over 0.13 grams, it does represent roughly 1/3500 of the accounted f or material today. That is equivalent to a one gram sample of a 3500g TKW, or two grams of a 7kg f all. Or 10 grams of a 35kg f all. As you can see, in all cases the relative

TKW, or two grams of a 7kg f all. Or 10 grams of a 35kg f all. As you can see, in all cases the relative amount is signif icant. Now overlay the f act that the vast majority of Borodino remains in a single mass with the second largest piece almost completing the entire TKW. With both of those specimens in institutional collections, the amount of Borodino available to the private collector is just slightly more than zero.

When the bicentennial of the 1812 Battle of Borodino was commemorated two years ago, I paused to consider the implications and contributions the Borodino meteorite made to culture, science, and meteorite collecting. Even if not a rare type, nor an exceptional f all event having hit nothing but air and soil, the Stone of Borodino symbolizes optimism f or better f uture just bef ore one of the darker times in history. Had the sentry given up hope, or had Commander Dietrichs not taken the time, energy or inspiration to somehow preserve the stone throughout the battle, or had his descendants not believed in the importance of the rock caring f or it long af ter every witness to the f all had died, we would all be lesser people.

War is hell. But hell can be overcome by indomitable optimism. Even in of death, a message can be passed to the next generation. And the one af ter that. And the one af ter that. The Battle of Borodino was immortalized in paintings, writings and song as well as within a single meteorite- Borodino: A Rock f or the Ages.

Until next time….

For scale, there are 70,000 dots below, each representing a soul who lost his lif e during the Battle of Borodino. That’s 700 rows of 100 dots each. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….

……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….

****************************************************************** EDITORS NOTE: 18 pages of dots removed f or magazine layouts ****************************************************************** ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….

……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….………. ……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….

R.I.P.

Meteorite Times Magazine Meteorite Hunters vs The Weather James Tobin

In my last article I mentioned that I might try to get in a trip meteorite hunting in the autumn. Well, this article begins when I got an email f rom my f riend Richard Garcia that a trip meteorite hunting was being put together and would I like to go. Not too tough a question, but I had to look at my schedule and check how f ree I was.

I got back to Richard about a day later saying that I would love to go and I got some more details. It was pretty easy f or me. He was driving and I could ride with him. He had made hotel arrangements and even if there was no bed space f or me I was happy to take a sleeping bag and sleep on the f loor. It was a great group of hunters that were going. I think they were all Facebook f riends but I did not think I had actually met any of them in person.

Yelland Dry Lake was a spot that Paul and I had seriously considered hunting several years ago. But it is just a little too f ar to go f or the number of days that we usually have f or vacation. So this was going to be my chance to hunt the lake even though it had been a f ew years and there had been plenty of people there bef ore me. It looked like pieces of meteorite were still being f ound so I f elt good about my chances of f inding some pieces, but whether I did or not it would be f un and I would get to know a f ew more of the hunters f rom my part of the country.

I got most of my stuf f together a couple days bef ore we were scheduled to leave. Compared to going out of town f or astrophotography meteorite hunting is a breeze to pack f or. Just a bag of clothes personal stuf f , my small hunting bag that holds all the required equipment of the modern meteorite hunter and f or Yelland just my magnet stick. Not much compared to the f our accessory cases large tub two telescopes, mount and laptop and a hundred other things that go to do star images.

My hunting bag is a small surplus military canvas bag with a zillion little pockets and pouches. It is great f or holding all the things one needs to hunt f or space rocks. I am little old school when it comes to meteorite hunting. Af ter twenty years of using GPS equipment I still don’t trust them solely f or recording the location of f inds. I had everything I needed except a small notebook f or writing down the f ind inf ormation to put in the plastic bag with the pieces if I f ound any. I looked around the house f or a notebook and could not f ind one so it was of f to the store to buy one. But, that was really all I needed that I did not have. I did not know if we would use them with this group as Paul and I have in the past but I put in my walkie-talkies which were basically new and had never been used f or hunting. They were replacements f or my old ones that had some problems the last time we tried using them.

The weather report f or the next week f or Ely, Nevada was changing day by day as I checked it on my phone. One of the days now was showing wind and one was showing thunderstorms. I knew that I had lost the leather strap on my hat and I had chased it enough in my lif e across day lakes. So I needed to make some kind of a strap and that would be about all the prep work f or this trip.

I know that not all the readers have hunted meteorites so here is a short list of the things we take to f ind and record space rocks. Camera: either phone or small digital, magnet stick and of ten a metal detector, handheld GPS, extra batteries, loupe or magnif ying glass, bandanas to cover back of my neck worn under my hat, plastic baggies, pen and paper, sunblock, spade or a hammer and pick combo, small pack or day bag, cell phone if there is service or handheld communicators. I add to this a diamond f ile f or f ield testing and a digital scale that stays in my luggage to weigh f inds in the evening.

I had about an hour and a half drive to Richard’s house and I wanted to get there a little early so we would be sure to leave when he wanted. I was driving in the opposite direction of the rush hour traf f ic but there would still be some spots where it could be bumper to bumper. Richard had done the planning and had been to Yelland bef ore. He wanted to do the same thing that Paul and I have done which was drive half way to the distant location on the af ternoon and evening of the night bef ore we are really starting. Then get a f resh rested start f or the last several hours drive and hunt most of the f irst real day. Las Vegas is just about half way and we had reservations f or the night there Thursday night and would head out early to meet up with some of the other guys around noon Friday at the dry lake.

Af ter a great visit with Richard at his home which included the tour of his observatory we were on the

road. Las Vegas is well what can I say its Las Vegas. We had dinner with Richard’s brother at a Mexican restaurant they wanted to try and the f ood was very tasty. A little time spent in the casino of the hotel and it was time f or a restless night of sleep. Not that I wanted a restless night but I guess I was like a little boy bef ore a big adventure. I was really ready to get out hunting af ter a couple years of indulging in other hobbies.

It is another f ew hours drive up to Yelland Dry Lake f rom Las Vegas and we f illed the time with great conversation. Robert and Robby Hoover were coming up that af ternoon and we soon got a phone call that they were just a couple hours behind us on the road. The weather report had been changing f rom good to bad to worse over the last couple days. But going on was the only thing we wanted to do. It was close to noon when we started the of f road last miles toward the lake bed. It was very windy and patchy clouds, it even then looked like it was getting rainy in the distance.

Richard stopped the Jeep as close as he could to the lake bed and I grabbed my bag and started out hiking. He f inished up getting his stuf f and f ollowed a f ew minutes later. In just a f ew minutes more my walkie-talkie squawked and Richard was telling me he had f ound a meteorite already near the place he entered the lake bed. It was a great piece f rom the outside of a larger stone. It was a rounded corner with a f ew red spots on a nice mottled surf ace.

This is Richard’s very nice meteorite he f ound on Yelland Dry Lake in a minute or two. It is am exterior corner piece and that is quite special. Most pieces are broken internal shards f rom larger masses.

In just a f ew more minutes one of the f our rocks that stuck to my magnet stick that day jumped up. It looked like a meteorite enough but not like the f ew samples I had seen of Yelland. I showed it to Richard and he agreed it might be a meteorite but thought the same thing that it looked dif f erent. Af ter getting home I went to the Met Bulletin and looked at the pictures posted of Yelland and some of them do look like this little stone.

This is the f irst of the meteorites I f ound on Yelland Dry Lake. It is dif inately a meteorite but has a little dif f erent look than most of the pieces.

Richard had lost phone service so I had been sending messages to Robert and Robby Hoover using my phone until my phone got unreliable too. We were on the lake bed when our walkie-talkies crackled with a broken up call f rom Robby. They were just a little too f ar away but were out there. When they did not arrive af ter a time Richard said that at 3 pm he would head out to look f or them and asked if I was going to stay on the lake and hunt. I said I would keep hunting. The weather was starting to turn worse. There had been some rain on my side of the lake but not enough to get wet just sprinkles. It was raining more on the other side we were heading f or where it was thought our best chance would be. I was well into the middle of the lake and f ar f rom the Jeep when the second of the f our stones that my magnet picked up was touched. It was nice sized and though it had a lot of clay on it I was hopef ul it was my f irst Yelland that looked like a Yelland. I bagged it and recorded the location. Doing this was pretty hard in f orty mile an hour winds. I had stopped trying to wear a hat. It would not stay on and was just billowing out to the side of my head pulling on the strap around my neck. It went into my pack until later. Richard had made his way much f urther to the other side of the lake bed but had hunted back toward me since it was nearly the time he had said he was going to leave to look f or the Hoovers. I showed him the piece I had f ound and we spoke f or a minute then I moved on into the lake f urther to where he had pointed me.

Af ter cleaning up this stone some it looked just like it should and made me pretty content since I was not going to be skunked f or the whole trip. The red spots we saw on it af ter cleaning were very much like thoses on Richard’s nice corner piece.

I hunted in the rain and wind f or I guess another 30-45 minutes when I saw the two vehicles on the edge

of the lake. A f igure was making his way out toward the direction I was going so I walked toward him. In just a f ew moments I was greeted by Robby Hoover.

The weather continued to deteriorate and I was heading back to the vehicles. I could see Richard coming in my direction and when he reached us he was still determined to make it to the spot out there where we would have our best chance f or f inding a f ew meteorites. We made a great try at getting there, but the clouds continued to darken and the rain got stronger and the f ierce wind grew as we pressed on When the lightning began striking ever f ew seconds on the mountains of f the sides of the lake we turned back.

We were the highest objects on the lake bed we were starting to look like candidates f or getting struck by lightning.

We were trying one more time to make our way across the lake to the area where we would have our best chance, but as you can see in this picture the clouds are getting ominous and the wind and rain were not subsiding. Within minutes of this image that Robby Hoover took the lightning was striking every f ew seconds on the hills around the lake and it was time to accept that we had to leave.

Somewhat disappointed that we were only there f or about three or f our hours and not sure we would be able to return the next day we retreated f rom the lake. The 50 odd miles f rom Yelland to Ely, Nevada seemed like the longest 50 miles of my lif e there is something about that drive that seems to take f orever to pass.

Richard had f ound a nice stone and I had f ound a something or two. I would clean up the one at the hotel later and get the clay of f it so we could see the color better. We headed to our hotel and the Hoovers headed to theirs. We had called the other guys that were going to come up in the evening and told them to not come because of the rain and wind. They had not really started yet. We would hear later that they decided to go to Franconia to hunt to save their weekend.

Af ter checking into the hotel we met up with Robert and Robby f or dinner. The pizza and beer were on Richard since he had said f irst one to f ind a meteorite buys. That is what Paul and I do too so that was normal f un f or me. But, he had been the f irst and my f ind was still somewhat in debate since it was so dirty with clay on all but one side. And my other little piece was more meteorite looking but dif f erent. Both had been f ound af ter his immediate f ind.

Dinner was great I had not met the Hoovers bef ore that day and this meal was our f irst time to converse.

It was another of those crazy things that happens with weird f requency. Within minutes Robert says that

he was a pilot f or the Catalina Island seaplane company. I ask if it was the one under the Vincent Thomas Bridge, and he says yes. In shock I tell him that I worked at the Catalina Steamship company next door that shared the same launching ramp. I used to f ly in the seaplanes to Catalina to see f riends who owned a hotel in Avalon about once a week during several summers. We missed working at the same time by only about a year. The SS Catalina stopped running and ended up half sunk in Ensenada Mexico. His seaplanes were grounded (if you can actually ground a “sea” plane) because of too much corrosion f rom seawater.

But, if I had worked there only months more I might have taken my early morning f light with Robert as pilot.

On those f lights I was always the only passenger so I sat by the pilot and we chatted on the trip.

A lot more great conversation at dinner about a host of topics which included a new plan f or our trip. We would see what the rain did overnight and likely head south to the Alamo Breccia site at Hancock Summit, hunt and play there f or a couple hours then head to Stewart Valley f or hopef ully a f ew hours to f ind some meteorites.

It did rain all night and as late as 4:30-5 am I was still hearing thunder in the hotel room. There was no doubt af ter a whole night of hard rain we would not be trying to return to Yelland “not so dry” Dry Lake.

Robby and Robert Hoover and Richard Garcia under the Extraterrestrial Highway sige at the f ork in the road heading to the Alamo Breccia.

It was about a two and half hour drive down to the Alamo Breccia site and we arrived at just about 10 am.

Richard said we had to leave near 12 or we would not have any time at Stewart Valley. The hike up to the top of the breccia layer is not my f avorite hike. As any longtime reader of my articles knows I have some acrophobia. But, I did make it up to the highest spot again and had a picture taking moment with Richard and Robby. I f ound a dime up there. Do not know if it was accidentally dropped or some crazy geocaching deposit. I had said I was not going to take back much breccia but I did bring back my small bag stuf f ed with it. Robert and Robby had not been there bef ore so I did my best along with Richard to see that they f ound some nice pieces that would look great when cut.

Almost nothing is as much f un as hunting f ossils except maybe hunting meteorites. Here are a f ew pictures of the Alamo Breccia and one petroglyph image. There are not a lot of petroglyphs there as in other places in southern Nevada but it is always f un and interesting to see any that you f ind.

Two hours passes f ast up there on the ridge and we were back on the road headed toward Stewart Valley. We got there af ter a stop f or gas and a bite to eat at 4 pm. That gave us about 2 ½ to 3 hours to hunt. Richard wanted to f ind one as f ast as he could so I would know what they looked like. He drove around on the lake looking out the window and f ound one in a f ew minutes. We stopped near there and he f ound another in about a minute. He called Robert and Robby f rom where they were and we all hunted nearby that spot. In a f ew minutes Robert had f ound one then another. Then Robby f ound one. Then his dad had f ound another and then another making f our f or Robert. I was not seeing anything even close to the right color and though I was touching everything nothing was sticking to my magnet stick.

Af ter an hour or so of this I was starting to smell skunk on me and was thinking I would probably not f ind one f or there was not much light remaining. The Hoovers were ready to go and said goodbye. Richard took the jeep over to another spot that had been productive in the past and I got my magnet stick and started hunting again. In just a matter of seconds I touched toward the only stone I had seen that was brown and clack. It jumped onto my magnet. Richard was still just f eet away since it had only been a minute. I held the end of the magnet stick toward him and he looked at the stone and held out his hand to congratulate me. There were only a f ew minute lef t until it was just too dark to continue hunting. But, I had f ound one. Richard had given me the ones he f ound since I needed at least two.

I was carrying beads this trip and needed two meteorites. There is a wonderf ul program called Beads of Courage that serves children with serious illness by providing a bead f or each procedure and special event or challenge overcome during treatment. They have a bead kit that you can purchase with a donation. It consists of two beads and a note card and a pin or string. You can carry the two beads on an adventure or on a hike or bike race or really whatever. You keep one of the beads and you send back the other with the report card and you post images to a website. Then that returned bead is gotten by a child and they become a participant in the adventure or journey. Well I had decided to carry beads on this trip and if I f ound meteorites to include a meteorite that was f ound in with the returned bead and images. So I needed the second meteorite or I would have to give away my only f ound Stewart Valley. So big thanks to Richard f or providing the actual recovered meteorite that is being sent to a very courageous child.

This is the Stewart Valley meteorite I f ound.

Since I did f ind a meteorite at Stewart Valley the Dairy Queen sof t serve ice cream cones were on me at Baker on the way home.

I had cleaned up the Yelland at the hotel and it was looking a lot better that it was a meteorite. I got home f rom the trip at about 12:30 am on Sunday morning almost two days early. Got f ew hours sleep but went straight to the garage in the morning to put a window on that stone f rom Yelland. It was 25.4 grams when I started and 25 exactly when I f inished lapping it. There was no more doubt af ter lapping it. The stone had a nice sprinkling of small metal grains and I was an even happier hunter.

Here is the Yelland Meteorite af ter grinding a window on the nearly f lat broken side. It has a nice scattering of metal grains and is my newest f ound treasure along with the Stewart Valley.

Paul and I got in our traditional autumn astrophotography trip a couple weeks later and here is one of the images I took on that trip just f or the f un of it.

This is the Orion Nebula shot f or this year. With over two hours of total exposure time it is much deeper than last year’s image. But there is no end to how long you can shoot this area. Who knows next year I may go even longer to see what else I can bring out. Its my f avorite object to image.

Meteorite-Times Magazine Meteorite Market Trends

by Michael Blood Like

3 likes. Sign Up to see what your friends like.

This Month’s Meteorite Market Trends

by Michael Blood Please Share and Enjoy:

Meteorite Times Magazine UPDATE: San Bernardino Wash (L5) Robert Verish

Nomenclature Committee voted on my 2012 finds and officially named them San Bernardino Wash

Since my f irst article on this subject back in January 2014, there has been a lot of ef f ort (including additional f ieldwork) to get my UCLA-classif ied f inds f rom the San Bernardino Wash (SBW) strewn-f ield (as well as subsequent f inds) approved by the Nomenclature Committee (NomCom) and included in the Meteoritical Bulletin Database. This “Update” reports on those ef f orts.

The UCLA classif ications f or my 2012 SBW f inds were submitted to the NomCom. The Committee’s decision was to f ormally include them with earlier f ound stones. My f inds are now of f icially named “San Bernardino Wash (L5)”.

This is exciting news because this conf irms that there is a new, Gold Basin-style strewn-field and it is located in Southern California. What I mean by “Gold Basin-style”, is that both strewn-f ields are comprised of stones with variable appearances (due to variations in weathering, shock stage, and lithology). Yet despite very pronounced dif f erences among the Gold Basin (GB) stones in their “looks”, studies have shown that all of them are now deemed to have come f rom the same f all. This is now the same case f or the San Bernardino Wash strewn-f ield.

This is a distinction that I make, f or example, as opposed to a “Franconia-style” of concentration of f inds.

If you remember, the Franconia Area was once considered a singular strewn-f ield (because the Hchondrites appeared similar, superf icially), but upon f urther study, it has been shown that there were multiple H-chondrite f alls in that area. Hence, the Yucca Dense Collection Area (DCA) designation. (For more details, I ref er the reader to Melinda Hutson 2013 paper – see Ref . #2) In order to clarif y what I mean by variations in Gold Basin stonys, I need to ref er the reader to my 2001 abstract and my 2005 articles where I presented evidence f or the heterogeniety among the meteorites f ound in the Gold Basin/Hualapai Wash area. It was ten years ago, but readers may remember discussions about “Gold Basin (L6)”with “high-shock-stage” and strangely dark groundmass. For those not f amiliar with these topics, these terms came about as a result of my examination of many dozen of meteorites f rom the Gold Basin Area. Two dozen candidate stones were classif ied, resulting in 18 classif ications that were not “L4″.

The f ollowing Gold Basin (L6) & (L5) meteorites were submitted to the NomCom and were approved: Hualapai Wash 002 – L6, S5, W3 (highly shocked)

Hualapai Wash 003 Hualapai Wash 004 Hualapai Wash 005 Hualapai Wash 006 Hualapai Wash 007 Hualapai Wash 008 Hualapai Wash 009 Hualapai Wash 010 Hualapai Wash 011 Hualapai Wash 012 Hualapai Wash 013 Hualapai Wash 014 Hualapai Wash 015 Hualapai Wash 016 Hualapai Wash 017 Hualapai Wash 018 Hualapai Wash 019

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

L5, S4, W2 L5, S3, W2 L6, S3, W2 L6, S4, W2 L6, S4, W3 L5, S5, W1 L6, S4, W4 L6, S4, W1 L6, S4, W1 L6, S4, W3 L6, S4, W5 L6, S4, W3 L6, S3, W4 L6, S3, W1 L6, S5, W3 L5, S4, W1 L5, S4, W1

(highly shocked) – Finder Donald O’Keef f e (metal veined) – Finder Donald O’Keef f e (unweathered) (hi-shock & petrologic grade) (hi-shock & petrologic grade) (impact-melt breccia) (highly shocked & weathered) (2.35kg mass) (Fa 24.0+/-0.3%) (Fa 24.2+/-0.2%) (Fa 23.8+/-0.4%) (Fa 24.3+/-0.3%) (Fa 24.3+/-1.5%) (Fa 24.0+/-0.7%) (Fa 25.0+/-0.4%) (Fa 24.6+/-0.5%) (Fa 23.9+/-0.2%)

But while these approved meteorites were awaiting the next edition of the Meteoritical Bulletin, someone lodged a complaint which resulted in the Committee editing them out of the MetBull Database. The approvals were rescinded (which is the reason why there is such a large gap in the Hualapai Wash numbering sequence). All of the Hualapai Wash (L6) were deemed to be Gold Basin (L6). It was recommended that the classif ication f or Gold Basin be revised to “L4-6″, but that never happened. Nor was it ever reconciled how the Gold Basin meteoroid could have such a range of petrologic grade and shock stage (L4-6 S3-5 W1-5) while never exhibiting any obvious brecciation.

The reason that I am dredging-up this historical muck is only to give some insight into my thought process about how I would eventually handle the classif ications f or my SBWash f inds. I have been unf airly criticized f or (initially) not submitting my SBWash classif ications to the NomCom. But in my def ense (af ter experiencing the major rejection by the NomCom of my Hualapai Wash classif ications), why would I ever waste the NomCom’s time with my SBWash f ind classif ications when they are so obviously paired to the already approved and cataloged “San Bernardino Wash” meteorite?

But when the unf air criticism became decidedly vindictive and comments turned into personal insults, I changed my mind and decided to submit my f indings to the NomCom. I will now endeavor to recount the story of how my 2012 meteorite f ind became the of f icially recognized main mass of the San Bernardino Wash meteorite. But f irst, I would like to point-out that I have had a long history of involvement trying to recover meteorites f rom this area of the Pinto Mountains known as the Dale Mining District. Here is a list of some of the activities in which I was involved: The revised classif ication f or Dale Dry Lake was due to my ef f orts.

I proved the “Pinto Mountains Iron Meteorites” to be meteor-wrongs and had them deaccessioned f rom the San Bernardino County Museum of Natural History collection. I am quite f amiliar with a wide variety of meteor-wrongs f rom this locality.

I proved that Nininger’s 19kg Twentynine Palms (1955) L-chondrite is the main-mass of the Pinto Mountains (both meteorites f ound by the same f inder) by obtaining a piece of Pinto Mountains that was inherited by the nephew of the f inder, and personally physically-paired it to the type-specimen of “Twentynine Palms (1955)” in the collection at ASU. I belong to a prospectors club that has a claim in the Dale Mining District and my f ellow members can vouch that I have been long urging them to keep examining their sluice-boxes f or meteorites. In f act, one of the original f inders of the SBW meteorite, Fred Mason (also f rom San Diego County) is a f ellow prospector and Franconia strewn-f ield hunter.

I have invested a lot of time and ef f ort conducting meteorite-recovery and outreach in this part of Southern Calif ornia.

What I’m saying is that I am NOT a “late-comer to this party”!

More pointedly, I was invited to this meteorite locality by Fred Mason to join him at his gold prospect and he would show me where he f ound his f ragments of the SBW meteorite. In my f irst article about SBW (which was posted earlier this year) I recounted that reunion with Fred and how I eventually recognized that one of the hot-rocks that I metal-detected was actually a f ragment of that meteorite he f ound earlier.

Here in this article, we now pick-up the action where we had lef t-of f in the previous article:

Close-up image of a sub-gram f ragment that I f ound with my metal-detector on the same outcrop where Fred Mason discovered his f ragments. My f ield ID f or this is “San Bernardino Wash ‘a’ cluster” This small f ind, nonetheless, is independent corroboration of the earlier Fred Mason recovery.

My initial f ind is important, particularly to the original f inders, because it verif ies their recovery story, and shows that (f ar f rom being an interloper intruding into the their claim site) I was making a signif icant contribution to the recovery ef f ort. Encouraged that I actually did f ind a trace amount of the SBW meteorite, I returned to this locality to renew my search.

The f ollowing photos are in-situ images of some of my subsequent f inds:

In-situ image of my 2nd f ind at this locality: San Bernardino Wash “b” – Riverside County, CA

Image of my 2nd f ind (343 g) at this locality, af ter it was “plucked” f rom the ground: San Bernardino Wash “b” – Riverside County, CA

In-situ image of my 3rd f ind at this locality: San Bernardino Wash “c” – Riverside County, CA

In-situ image of my 3rd f ind with my 2nd f ind placed side-by-side: San Bernardino Wash “b” & “c” – Riverside County, CA

In-situ image of another f ragment f rom the San Bernardino Wash “c” cluster – so f ar, there have been an additional 24 f ragments f ound (TKW=630g) f rom this “splattercluster” .

Eventually in 2013, I got around to cutting some of these f ragments. One individual stone appeared to be much less weathered compared to the other f ragments, possibly indicating very micro-environmentcontrolled weathering of some f ragments. So, in order to determine if this “less weathered” individual was paired to the more weathered f ragments, these two specimens were sampled, thin-sectioned, microprobed, and characterized by UCLA. The resulting [similiar] classif ications showed that my two specimens were paired, AND that they were paired, as well, to the earlier classif ied San Bernardino Wash (L5) stones already in the Meteoritical Bulletin Database (MBD).

– see table below f or comparison.

The f ollowing meteorite specimens were characterized by Dr. Alan Rubin, UCLA:

Pinto Mountains — 1955 stone

(L6 S3 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.3% n=16; low-Ca pyroxene Fs20.3Wo1.5 n=17)

San Bernardino Wash — 2010 stone

(L5 S2 W3 Fa24.6+/-0.6% n=7) — (UCLA typespecimen)

San Bernardino Wash“b” — 2012 f ind

(L5 S2 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.4% n=14)

San Bernardino Wash“c” — 2012 f ind

(L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% n=24)

Although not necessarily a part of this study, but f or completeness, a sample of my Pinto Mountains specimen was thin-sectioned and characterized, as well. Even though there were some variations in weathering grade (W1-W3) and even less in shock stage (S1-S2), all of the SBW f ragments f ound in this study had many common characteristics. This stood in contrast to my Pinto Mountains specimen which displayed a more recrystallized (less f riable) groundmass, and chondrules that were more equilibrated with the matrix.

The data in the above table appeared in my earlier article on “SBWash (L5)” which was published in mid January of 2014.

So, the f act that I had made more SBWash f inds and already had them CLASSIFIED by UCLA was all public knowledge by the time I made my f irst post to the Meteorite-List about “the new North American meteorite strewn-f ield” on the 20th of January 2014.

Since my post to the Meteorite-List the remainder of this unf olding story revolves around UCLA and the NomCom. Since my post the remainder of this past year has been spent communicating with the NomCom, as well as, travelling to UCLA to have meetings with the classif ier. This eventually led-up to the vote by the NomCom on a name f or my f inds, but in the interim there was a good deal of involvement by all parties involved, which has lef t UCLA and the NomCom wondering why all of this was necessary, particularly just f or an ordinary chondrite?

I certainly could go into a lot more detail about all of this “involvement”, but suf f ice to say that the f inal decision to pair my f inds to the San Bernardino Wash Meteorite was in no way done in a casual manner.

And of course, there still remains the job of how best to document in the MBD this increase in TKW and in the additional amount of type-specimen held by UCLA. Still to be answered is what to do with the two classif ications done by UCLA f or my f inds? Does all the classif ier’s time/ef f ort/f unding not get recognized or documented somewhere? And if not, what then is the status of the “additional type-specimens”? If these specimens become divorced f rom their classif ications, then what accurate scientif ic purpose do they serve?

With all of these questions still pending, I f eel that it would be best to record, here, in this article how the naming of the San Bernardino Wash meteorite unf olded.

Below is a portion of the email message that I sent to the Editor of the Meteoritical Bulletin. This is how I submitted the classif ications done by UCLA, and how I requested that a name be approved by the NomCom f or these classif ied meteorites. (quote) > Attached you will f ind the MB-submission f orms f or the meteorites that I f ound in 2012. > They were all f ound within the San Bernardino Wash strewn-f ield located in > Riverside County, CA. > > In an attempt to pair these f inds to the San Bernardino Wash (L5) meteorite, > we encountered some dissimilarities among these meteorites. > What is at the heart of the problem is that, although I f ound all these meteorites > in a several meter wide “cluster” or “splatter zone”, none of them can be > physically-paired. Worse, my initial f ind is clearly a f resh, individual stone, > and all of the subsequent f inds f rom the cluster are weathered f ragments > which have no possibility of being related, let alone physically-paired, > to the discovery stone. This has produced a situation, > where an apparent pre-existing cluster of L-chondrite splatter f ragments > has had another L-chondrite mass subsequently f all onto that cluster. > (Note: there is a remote possibility that the individual stone is f rom the > same f all as the mass that produced the splatter f ragments. But > the coincidence that the (much less-weathered) individual stone was > somehow able to singularly protect itself f rom weathering, is too dif f icult > to reconcile. Also, the dif f erence in shock stage and in porosity > makes this scenario all too improbable.) > > > In an ef f ort to resolve this issue, I have brought all of my f ound f ragments > and their thin-sections to Dr. Rubin to compare with the type-specimens > and thin-section (in the UCLA collection) f or the San Bernardino Wash (L5) > meteorite. Af ter his caref ul comparison, and examination, as well as,

> characterization, it is our opinion that the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities > and that these three meteorites are not paired (or at least, can NOT be > proven to be paired) So, the more prudent course of action is to give > separate names to each of these meteorites. For example: > San Bernardino Wash (b) and San Bernardino Wash (c) > Please contact me should you have any questions. > Bob Verish (unquote) The table below is a representation of the data that appears in an “MB-submission-table”, meaning that this is the f orm that submitters send to the NomCom in order to request their approval f or a proposed name f or a meteorite. This f orm was attached to the above message that I sent to the Editor of the Meteoritical Bulletin, and he presented this data (and hopef ully, the inf ormation in my message to him) to the Committee in order f or the request to be brought up f or a vote: Please Note: This table may not be f ormatted correctly or show completely on your screen. Use this link to view this table correctly: http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2014/nov14.htm Proposed Find Mass PiecesClassShoWeaFa name Date

Classif ier

Type loc spec

MainmassFinderComments

San 2012 BernardinoApril 343.10only 1 L5 Wash (b) 18

S2 W1

Alan Fa23.8±0.4‰ Rubin, (n=14) UCLA

23 g UCLAVerish

San 2012 BernardinoApril 650.00>24 Wash ( c ) 18

S1 W3

Alan Fa24.0±0.2‰ Rubin, (n=24) UCLA

41 g UCLAVerish

L5

Submitter

Found in Riverside County; f ield ID: RSVPMb; slightly more equilibrated and less chondrulerich than San Bernardino Wash; more shocked than San Bernardino R. S. Wash (c); Verish Verishmuch less weathered than either of those two meteorites; but, if a degree of heterogeniety is allowed, it is probable that all the San Bernardino Wash L-chondrites are paired.

Found in Riverside County; f ield ID: RSVDale; slightly more equilibrated, less shocked and less chondrulerich than San R. S. Bernardino Verish VerishWash.

If a degree of heterogeniety is allowed, it is probable that all the San Bernardino Wash L-

chondrites are paired.

And below is the message sent to me f rom the Editor of the Met. Bull. indicating the results of the vote by the NomCom: To: Robert Verish <bolidechaser@yahoo.com> Subject: Status of job 20140913190136 Dear submitter, Here is the current status of samples you submitted to the Nomenclature Committee f or job 20140913190136 (San Bernadino Wash B+C): The following meteorites have been rejected: San Bernardino Wash (b) (343.10 g, L5) [Report date 2014 Sep 29.]

San Bernardino Wash (c) (650.00 g, L5) [Report date 2014 Sep 29.]

Job=20140913190136 (San Bernadino Wash B+C) Submitted by Robert Verish (bolidechaser@yahoo.com) San Bernardino Wash (b) (343.10 g, L5)

Vote: Approve=1, Disapprove=7, Abstain=0, Conf licted=0 Decision: Pending (did not pass: must be rejected or revoted) Votes and comments Reject: Reject – probably paired with SB Wash, since it is found in a known strewn field, as mentioned in writeup history. Perhaps the entry for SB Wash could be updated instead, adding these two new fragments. Reject: Recommend revising current entry for SB Wash instead of making new entries. Reject: Not enough evidence that this is unpaired with SB Wash, which is also L5, S2. Reject: Seems like more samples of the same meteorite– no new name warranted. Accept: What is the distance from SB Wash?

San Bernardino Wash (c) (650.00 g, L5)

Vote: Approve=1, Disapprove=7, Abstain=0, Conf licted=0 Decision: Pending (did not pass: must be rejected or revoted) Votes and comments Reject: Not enough evidence that this is unpaired with SB Wash. Put a note in bulletin under the original meteorite about the two new pieces. Reject: Recommend revising current entry for SB Wash instead of making new entries. Accept: What is the distance from SB Wash? Reject: same comments as other SB Wash (b) Reject: no new name warranted

The above reprint is the message sent to me f rom the Editor of the Meteoritical Bulletin describing the action taken by the NomCom and the results of their vote. These results indicate that my meteorites f ormerly known as “SB Wash (b) ” or Field ID “RSV-PMb”, and “SB Wash (c)” or Field ID “RSV-Dale” are now collectively known as the “San Bernardino Wash (L5)” meteorite. This is the f ormal notif ication that any labeled specimens currently held in collections should revise their labels and catalogs, if any of these f ormer names or f ield IDs were used, and instead, to use the approved name, “San Bernardino Wash”.

Fortunately f or me, I did not use any other name on my labels f or the specimens that I disseminated to other collections.

NOTE to collectors holding samples of my San Bernardino Wash (L5) f inds – any and all statements or comments declaring that “your specimens are not San Bernardino Wash” are inaccurate and unauthorized, and should be ignored.

It was also the concensus of the Committee that the entry f or San Bernardino Wash in the Meteoritical Bulletin Database (MBD) be updated to ref lect these additional masses. So, I extracted the already existing inf ormation that appeared in my “MB-submission-table” (see above) and sent that condensed data

to the Editor f or the Met. Bull. At the request of the webmaster f or the MBD, I sent that same inf ormation to him, as well. Although that data hasn’t been incorporated into the MBD, yet (at least, not at the time of the writing of this article) the f ollowing table would be a very accurate representation as to how this new inf ormation would appear:

San Bernardino Wash Basic information

Name: San Bernardino Wash This is an OFFICIAL meteorite name.Abbreviation: There is no of f icial abbreviation f or this meteorite.Observed fall: No Year found: 2010Country: United StatesMass: 1250 g

Classification history:

Recommended:

L5

This is 1 of 5236 approved meteorites (plus 1 unapproved name) classif ied as L5. <ahref =”/meteor/metbull.php?sea=L5&sf or=types&stype=exact&lrec=200&srt=name”>[show all] Search f or other: <ahref =”/meteor/metbull.php? sea=&sf or=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&categ=L+chondrites+%28type+4-7%29&srt=name”> L chondrites (type 4-7), <ahref =”/meteor/metbull.php? sea=&sf or=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&categ=Ordinary+chondrites+%28type+4-7%29&srt=name”> Ordinary chondrites (type 4-7), <ahref =”/meteor/metbull.php? sea=&sf or=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&categ=L+chondrites&srt=name”> L chondrites, and <ahref =”/meteor/metbull.php? sea=&sf or=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&categ=Ordinary+chondrites&srt=name”> Ordinary chondrites

Comments:

Approved 28 Feb 2012Revised 8 Mar 2012: updated massRevised ?? Sep 2014: updated Mass, Pieces, Main mass, Type specimens and Comments

Writeup from MB 100: Writeup San Bernardino Wash

34°0’2″N, 115°43’47″W

Calif ornia, USA Found: 2010 Classif ication: Ordinary chondrite (L5) History: Bob Perkins of Highland, Calif ornia f ound the f irst and second stones while metal-detecting f or gold with Gary Crabtree near the “Rusty Gold Mine,” in the Dale Mining District. Several f ragments were subsequently f ound by Fred Mason, of Arizona.

Writeup from MB 103:

San Bernardino Wash [additional] History: On 18 April 2012 additional stones were recovered by Robert Verish, also of San Diego, Calif ornia. His f irst f ind (343.1g) was a nearly whole, slightly weathered individual stone. The subsequent stones (~650g) were all just a f ew meters away, f orming a 20m wide “splatter zone” comprising ~24 badly weathered f ragments, none of which could be physically-paired to the 343g stone.

Data from:MB100 Table 0 Line 0:

State/Prov/County: Date: Latitude: Longitude: Mass (g): Pieces: Class: Shock stage: Weathering grade: Fayalite (mol%):

Calif ornia 2010 34°0’2″N 115°43’47″W 258 10 L5 S2 W3 24.6±0.6 (n=7)

Ferrosilite (mol%): Wollastonite (mol%): Classifier: Type spec mass (g): Type spec location: Main mass: Finder: Comments:

Data from:MB103 Table 0 Line 0:

Institutionsand collections

Mass (g): Pieces: Classifier: Type spec mass (g): Type spec location: Main mass: Comments:

20.4 1.3 (n=8) A.E. Rubin 22.1 UCLA JUtas Bob Perkins Submitted by JUtas 1250 >34 A.E. Rubin 86.1 UCLA Verish Submitted by Verish; Specimens: 22.1g (3 samples f rom the initial 10 pieces), 23g (f rom the 343g stone) and 41g (f rom the main mass); Because the 343g stone looks much less weathered, it was micro-probed by A.E. Rubin (classif ier, UCLA) and characterized as being, “not only much less weathered, but also more shocked, slightly more equilibrated, and less chondrule-rich than the other San Bernardino Wash stones”

<ahref =”http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullCollectionInf o.php?coll=UCLA”> UCLA: Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of Calif ornia, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567, United States (institutional address; updated 17 Oct 2011)<ahref =”http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullCollectionInf o.php?coll=JUtas”> JUtas: Jason Utas, United States (private address; updated 8 Jun 2010) Verish: Robert Verish, Meteorite-Recovery Lab, P.O. Box 463084, Escondido, CA 92046, United States; Website (private address; updated 27 May 2009)

Catalogs: References:

Published in Meteoritical Bulletin, no. 100, MAPS 46, in preparation (2013) Find ref erences in NASA ADS: Find ref erences in Google Scholar:

Geography:

Coordinates: Recommended::

(34° 0′ 2″N, 115° 43′ 47″W)

Statistics: This is 1 of 243 approved meteorites f rom <ahref =”/meteor/metbull.php? sea=Calif ornia&sf or=places&stype=exact&lrec=200&country=United+States&srt=name”> Calif ornia, United States (plus 24 unapproved names) This is 1 of 1738 approved meteorites f rom <ahref =”/meteor/metbull.php? sea=&sf or=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&country=United+States&srt=name”> United States (plus 355 unapproved names) (plus 28 impact craters) View Google Map

Proximity search: Also see:

Find nearby meteorites: enter search radius (km): See what others liked This lists the most popular meteorites among people who looked up this meteorite.

Revisionhistory:

Revision history This lists important revisions made to data f or this record.

Once this new inf ormation gets recorded, what remains to be done will be the uploading of images of SBWash specimens into the Encyclopedia of Meteorites. The f ollowing images would be good examples:

– IMAGE GALLERY —

Thin-section taken from my fragment found at the Fred Mason locality:

Cheap, hastily made thin-section f or visual-pairing purposes of my specimen f rom the Fred Mason f ind locality.

Close-up. This thin-section was visuallypaired to the SBW(L5) type-specimen at UCLA, which corroborates the Fred Mason f ind location and the existence of a strewnf ield.

– IMAGE GALLERY — >Part-slices from the “W1″ fragment:

San Bernardino Wash (L5 S2 W1 ) – Riverside Co., CA

San Bernardino Wash (L5 S2 W1 ) – Riverside Co., CA

– IMAGE GALLERY — Part-slices from the “S1 W3″ fragments:

San Bernardino Wash (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% n=24) – Riverside Co., CA

San Bernardino Wash (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% n=24) – Riverside Co., CA

Latest f ind (unclassif ied) f rom the San

Bernardino Wash Area – by an anonymous gold prospector. “The continual gold prospecting with metal detectors has inadvertently resulted in the recovery of additional chondritic stones.” — RSV Hope you enjoyed the images!

I concluded my previous SBW article by saying, “There may be more inf ormation f orthcoming about this meteorite, at a later time – if more are f ound.” and that still remains the case, even now.

References: 1.) San Bernardino Wash (L5) in Meteorite-Times — the January 2014 “Bob’s Findings article.

2.) Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005) Meeting (LPSC 2005). This poster presentation was titled: “ATMOSPHERIC FRAGMENTATION OF THE GOLD BASIN METEOROID AS CONSTRAINED FROM COSMOGENIC NUCLIDES”

by Kees Welten, D. J. Hillegonds, A. J. T. Jull and David A. Kring Poster presentation at: Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005) Meeting (LPSC 2005).

This is the link to that abstract: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf /2352.pdf Among other things, this abstract concluded that: “The radionuclide results f rom f if teen (15) new L-chondrite specimens f rom the Gold Basin Area indicate that all samples are part of the same shower, which should be reclassif ied as an L4-6 chondrite breccia.”

3.) “Stones f rom Mohave County, Arizona: Multiple f alls in the “Franconia strewn f ield”

by Melinda Hutson, Alex Ruzicka, A. J. Timothy Jull, James E. Smaller and Ryan Brown in Meteoritics & Planetary Science (M&PS): Volume 48, Issue 3, pages 365–389, March 2013 Abstract: One of the most productive and well-sampled dense collection areas f or meteorites on Earth is the “Franconia strewn f ield” in Mohave County, Arizona, which since 2002 has yielded hundreds of meteorites in an ellipsoidal area approximately 5 × 16 km across. Based on petrographic, mineral-chemical, and terrestrial age data, we conclude that among 14 meteorites examined, there are at least 6 and possibly 8 distinct meteorites represented, which f ell over a period of approximately 0–20 kyr ago. These include equilibrated H-chondrites such as Franconia (H5) and Buck Mountains (BM) 001 (H6); H3–6 breccias such as Buck Mountains Wash and BM 004; and L6 chondrites such as BM 002 and BM 003 (which may be paired), Palo Verde Mine, and BM 005. To conf idently pair such meteorites of ten requires thorough petrographic examination, mineral-chemical analyses, and terrestrial ages. We estimate that 50 ± 10% of the larger specimens in this area are paired, yielding a relatively high value of approximately 2.3– 2.9 distinct meteorites km−2. The meteorite f lux estimated f or Franconia area is higher than the f lux inf erred f rom contemporary f ireball data f or larger masses. We suggest that one large H3–6 meteoroid f ell in the area, most likely that of Buck Mountains Wash approximately 4 kyr ago, which produced an elliptical strewn f ield with masses generally increasing toward one end, and which raised the meteorite productivity in the recovery area.

4.) San Bernardino Wash in Meteoritical Bulletin: Entry f or San Bernardino Wash – as originally published in Meteoritical Bulletin, no. 100, MAPS 46, (2014).

5.) Photo Gallery of San Bernardino Wash Meteorites on the “Calif ornia Meteorites dot Com” website.

Any and all meteorite classif ications that appear in this article are courtesy of Dr. Alan Rubin, UCLA. There are many active claims in the San Bernardino Wash area. All of these are “placer & hardrock gold claims”, and even though meteorites can NOT be included in a gold claim (because they are “non-relocateable”), there is no way to distinguish between metal-detecting for meteorites (which is allowed) from metal detecting for gold (which requires permission from the claim-holder)! This article in no way suggests prospecting on a claim without permission. For more information, see BLM Land Use Policy.)

My previous articles can be f ound *HERE* For f or more inf ormation, please contact me by email: Bolide*chaser

Meteorite Times Magazine ASU Higher Magnification John Kashuba

This is a selection of photos of various thin sections in the horde released by Arizona State University earlier this year. Most are at a higher magnif ication than those I usually place here.

Complex chondrule. Diameter 0.6mm. Allende CV3

Complex chondrule. Diameter 1mm. Allende CV3

Barred olivine chondrule. The upper portion of this chondrule displays f our warm colored segments of bars whose arrangement suggests the hourglass conf iguration that Roger Warin, FrĂŠdĂŠric Hatert and I discussed in the November 2010 issue of Meteorite magazine. We f ound that hourglass chondrules are mineralogical twins. Diameter 0.45mm. Faith H5

Crystals in vugs. Gladstone H4

Crystals in a vug. Field of view 0.52mm wide. Gladstone H4

Barred olivine chondrule with two distinct sets of bars, each with its associated rim. New Concord L6

Like the broken barred olivine chondrule in Selma H4 we looked at in September 2014, this BO chondrule broke and slipped â&#x20AC;&#x153;verticallyâ&#x20AC;? bef ore being sectioned. We could demonstrate the geometry of this by holding a peeled cooked egg point up and slicing it in half with a knif e f rom top to bottom; then sliding one of the halves down, vertically, one third of its height; then making a horizontal cut through both pieces at the level of the center of the stationary half . Taiban L5

Barred olivine chondrule with metal blebs (sparkling blue). Cross-polarized transmitted light and incident light. Wellman (a) H5

Meteorite Times Magazine A complete Australite detached flange ring!

Norm Lehrman

Figure 1: an Aussie lens, a f langed button, and rarest of all, a complete detached f lange ring!

Flanged Australite buttons are perhaps the most coveted tektite morphology that exists, and they are, indeed, glorious things. But they have an occasional of f spring that is much, much rarer: the detached f lange ring.

The majority of Australites appear to have started atmospheric re-entry as spheres, which were always thermally modif ied in subsequent gravitationally-accelerated f light. Flanges f ormed (and were sometimes preserved) in Australites of a very narrow initial size range. Above a certain size, temperatures were unable to equilibrate between the red hot f rontal f ace and the vacuum-ref rigerated posterior of the tektite.

This thermal stress led to the explosive spalling of f lakes f rom the expanding leading surf ace and the f ormation of f luted ablation cores. Within the critical dimension range, thermal stresses did equilibrate suf f iciently to preclude breakage, and molten glass f rom the f ace f lowed into the pressure shadows ringing the shoulder to f orm coiled f langes of secondary glass. But very of ten, the process went too f ar, and the f langes themselves were ablated away, leaving the most common Australite morphology of all, the discoid lens.

But what of the lost f langes? Once in a great while, they detached intact and survived as perf ect rings.

These are rare treasures and it took me over 20 years to acquire the specimen f eatured in this article. So f ar, I have never had another opportunity to obtain another one at any price.

Figure 2: A f langed button arrested by the cold of dark f light moments bef ore it lost its ring.

All specimens are f rom the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private collection. The detached ring weighs 0.9 grams.

Meteorite Times Magazine Laura Atkins Interview Paul Harris

This f eature is devoted to one of the personalities within the meteorite community. This month we are delighted to share an interview we had with Laura Atkins.

(MT) What or who got you interested in meteorites and how old were you when you got your f irst meteorite?

(LA) I have always been a rock hound, treasure hunter, artif act and f ossil f inder since I can remember, and even have some of them still to this day f rom when I was very young child. I admire them f ondly, but they have only memory value. I started hunting meteorites specif ically in my adult lif e, with my Nephew Larry Atkins. Our passion and our like views and spirit, make the exchange of ideas and curiosity a natural thing f or us. I can remember a time he would talk about going to the Tucson Gem and Mineral show, and I wanted to go terribly, but wasn’t able to get away f rom work. Later and with a dif f erent job, I said, “I’m going”, and that was pretty much the start of my great meteorite adventures.

(MT) What was your f irst meteorite?

(LA) My f irst meteorite was a Gold Basin, f ound 2 of them on f irst trip two mornings in a row about 100 f eet or less f rom camp…then nothing the rest of the trip. Nothing too big to brag about, just about the size of a half dollar, but still my f irst f ind.

(MT) Do you still have it?

(LA) Yes, I still have them and out on display too!

(MT) Do you have special areas of interest that you f ocus on in regards to meteorites (thin sections, photography, chemistry, age dating.. etc.)?

(LA) The hunt is one of my f avorite parts of the experience, searching f or these rare treasures has me thinking about them daily and yearning to head out f or a search. The excitement is like no other! I watch and listen f or reports, and get that f eeling every time it looks like there is a possibility f or a f ind.

I am a very visual person, so the meteorite itself , thin sections, composition, and the story behind each one is the source f or my artwork. I am currently working on a body of work pertaining to meteorites, and specif ic f inds. I look f or specif ic meteorites, and when I come across one that has a great story or has a look that I f eel I can use f or inspiration, I purchase the piece and use the actual meteorite and its story in the works. I combine research, computer graphics, and hand printing on rice papers and dif f erent substrates f or the f inal pieces. Some are graphically hidden in the piece, and also done as assembly, with the actual piece shown in the work unaltered. I have plans to show at the Tucson Gem & Mineral show in 2016.

(MT) Does your Family share in your interest in meteorites?

(LA) Yes, my Nephew Larry Atkins and my brother Brent Hiller, along with myself get together every year to go on one major hunt. I have several other nephews that hunt and collect as well, so I guess you could call it a f amily thing. Everyone in the f amily is very supportive and understands the drive, even if they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t go out in the f ield.

(MT) Do you have any special approaches to collecting (LA) As f or approaches, that goes back to my artwork, and what I f eel I would like to work with in the piece.

It is win win f or me on collecting. I learn daily about the science, the piece itself and its history. Pallasites, irons, rare f inds, all f alls collectively peak my interest. I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have a humidity controlled storage, so that does af f ect my decisions in collecting specif ic pieces.

(MT) Do you mind saying how many locations your collection represents?

(LA) Just a small collection at this time.

(MT) Is your collection displayed or kept in a dry box or both?

(LA) Both. I keep a f ew out on display, but some are kept in a locked saf e.

(MT). In what ways do you use your computer f or meteorites. (met-list, Social Media, meteorite research, shopping, etc.)

(LA) All of the above. I read and research dif f erent types, and study as much as I can about them by classif ication. I use the American Meteor Society pages f or research on new sightings and inf ormation, and search eBay occasionally f or particular meteorites if Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m looking to buy. Some of the most interesting views come f rom the conversations in the meteorite-list.

(MT) Do you ever hunt f or meteorites?

(LA) Yes, I generally go out to AZ every year f or a couple of weeks to do some hunting. Sometimes successf ul, and sometimes not. I recently have been going out doing some interviews on some sighted f alls and making contacts.

(MT) What is your f avorite meteorite in your collection?

(LA) Kediri, L4. This came f rom a trade with ASU. I made the trade to acquire the Kediri, f or a nice Indian Butte that I f ound out in Stanf ield, AZ. (MT) What is your f avorite overall if it is not the one above?

(LA) Indian Butte, since this was my most major f ind.

(MT) What makes these of special interest?

(LA) For the Indian Butte, I was one of the hunters that got to experience that incredible hunt and had a great f ind. There were about 12 of us out there putting in a lot of hours in a dangerous setting. That particular hunt was one of the highlights of a lif etime! The energy, f riendship, and camaraderie was like nothing I had ever experienced, and a true reason f or engaging in the search f or these treasures. I made many lif etime f riends.

(MT) What meteorites are currently on your wish list?

(LA) I think Seymchan is next on the list…I have a f ew others in mind as well, but just one at a time. I just purchase a couple of Allende slices f or some artwork, so that particular search is over f or right now. I’m now looking f or just the right Seymchan to catch my eye!

(MT) What methods have been most successf ul in building your collection? (Buying at shows, f rom dealers by mail, auctions on the web, trading… etc) (LA) Finding them myself of f ers the greatest satisf action! All other pieces have been thru trade, gif t or searching the met-list or ebay.

(MT) Which Shows do you attend?

(LA) Tucson Gem & Meteorite Show which is so amazing. There is something about that show that makes me want to go every year! If you have ever been, you will understand!

(MT) Do you also collect related materials like impact glasses,

(LA) I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have any at this time, but do hope to add them to my collection.

(MT) Do you prepare any of your own specimens? (cut, polish, etch,etc.)

(LA) No, that is something that I have to rely on the experts to handle.

(MT) Have you had to take any special measures to protect them f rom the environment?

(LA) Not yet because I try to be selective with my purchases.

Meteorite Times Magazine Meteorite of the Month: Gebel Kamil Paul Harris

Our Meteorite of the Month is kindly provided by Tucson Meteorites who hosts The Meteorite Picture of the Day.

Contributed by Doug Ross, IMCA 2641 2035 grams. 16 x12 x6 cm. Iron, ungrouped TKW 1600 kg. Fall not observed. Found 2009 in East Uweinat Desert, Egypt.

Submit Pictures to Meteorite Pictures of the Day

Meteorite Times Magazine Meteorite-Times Sponsors

by Editor Please support Meteorite-Times by visiting our sponsors websites. Click the bottom of the banners to open their website in a new tab / window.

catchafallingstar.com

Nakhla Dog Meteorites

Michael Blood Meteorites The Meteorite Exchange

Impactika

Rocks From Heaven

Aerolite Meteorites

Big Kahuna Meteorites

Sikhote-Alin Meteorites

Michael Farmer

Schoolers

Advertise Here

Nevada Meteorites

Once a few decades ago this opening was a framed window in the wall of H. H. Nininger's Home and Museum building. From this window he must have many times pondered the mysteries of Meteor Crater seen in the distance.

Photo by Š 2010 James Tobin