Meteorite I Found

[Ripcon]

Well, I found it in my garage after being given to me 50 years ago!
I'm trying to learn more about meteorites and their value. My understanding is that they are sold according to weight (in grams). Mine weighs 1.14 pounds. I was told by our state geologist that this is an iron/nickel meteorite. It was found the U.S. in the desert southwest by a guy that was metal detecting for indian war period artifacts. So glad to see this category in Treasurenet.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[galenrog]

I see no characteristics common to meteorites. What tests were performed by your State Geologist to determine it was a meteorite?

Time for more coffee.

 

[Ripcon]

I see no characteristics common to meteorites. What tests were performed by your State Geologist to determine it was a meteorite?

Time for more coffee.

I appreciate your seeing my post but why am I trying to convince YOU it's a meteorite?? It was actually pretty easy to determine. Our state geologist did the magnet test as well as cut into it and it was actually a pretty easy determination. My purpose for posting was not to get confirmation of its authenticity. That has already been done.

 

[galenrog]

Magnet test is meaningless. Much of the gravel in my driveway is attracted to common magnets. I would like to see the cut. A polished slice from the piece tells a lot. Metal and elemental analysis is common when determining if a rock is a meteorite. I have been wrong before, and am always eager to learn more.

Time for more coffee.

 

[CoinFetcher]

We love our hard nosed treasurenet members.

I personally do NOT want a cheerleading squad that just agrees with everything I post.

I think the Rock kinda looks like iron, which could be a meteorite

 

[Ripcon]

I posted on this site because I wanted to share my meteorite with this group. And yes, it's confirmed to be a meteorite. That's not even an issue here. I posted here to try to get more information about the meteorite collecting community, etc. and try to get connected.
My affiliation and work with the archaeological community in my state led me to contact our state geologist with whom I formed a friendship with. It didn't take him long to confirm that this was a meteorite. I'm excited to continue to learn more about these space objects and hope to increase my knowledge from others on this site.

 

[Terry Soloman]

Well, I found it in my garage after being given to me 50 years ago!
I'm trying to learn more about meteorites and their value. My understanding is that they are sold according to weight (in grams). Mine weighs 1.14 pounds. I was told by our state geologist that this is an iron/nickel meteorite. It was found the U.S. in the desert southwest by a guy that was metal detecting for indian war period artifacts. So glad to see this category in Treasurenet.

View attachment 1889198

View attachment 1889199

Your specimen looks like meteorites I have seen from [FONT=&quot]Russia’s "Dronino" strewnfield (iron / nickel). I have also found similar in Arizona (Franconia strewn field). Of course, none of us can really tell from a photo, but it looks good. [/FONT]

 

[Rick K]

Some tough skeptics around here...

So, the State geologist is incompetent or the IP is making it all up - and “Unless I see it and verify it - it isn’t a meteorite”

 

[Molewacker]

There has been so many meteor wrongs posted here, please understand our questioning of your piece.

I too would like to see your cut sample -

Glad you found it again!

 

[Red-Coat]

You are broadly correct that meteorites are priced by weight but that’s a very simplistic answer which doesn’t reflect the true situation. They’re priced by weight within the typology categories that relate to their composition. Common types will be priced at a few cents per gram all the way up to rare types which might command $50,000 per gram (although those won’t be magnetic). The value is also dependent on whether a meteorite can be said to be ‘paired’ with other known specimens (ie was part of a fall from which we already have specimens) or represents a new fall not previously recorded.

For paired specimens the value will be lower if the total known fall weight is substantial; and higher if the total known fall weight is small. For a new fall, the value rises further if the specimen has been typed, is recorded in the database of the Meteoritical Society, and has been granted an approved name. Overlaid on those prices are additional things which affect their value such as the presence of interesting features or mineral inclusions.

From the pictures posted so far, I see nothing which is particularly diagnostic for a meteorite and, frankly, I don’t usually put much credence in an unnamed geologist saying that it is, unless he has some specific expertise in meteoritics and/or further details of the tests performed are provided.

You say that he has “cut into it”. Good. But you have neither told us nor pictured what he found, except to say that it’s “nickel-iron”. That covers a multitude of types including the most common meteorites based on recovered weights (as opposed to most common by frequency of find). With the exception of some very specific meteorite types, I would defy anyone (even a geologist) to identify a meteorite just by looking. You also say “it was a pretty easy determination”. So, either he observed some specific diagnostic features, or he conducted further tests beyond just looking. What further tests did he conduct, if any?

The most common nickel-iron types are hexahedrites and octahedrites composed principally of kamacite and taenite (both of which are nickel-iron alloys). The way that they crystallise usually creates a distinctive geometric pattern known as “Widmanstatten figures”. Sometimes you can see these (or the boundaries between the two alloys) without enhancement but more usually, the diagnostic is to etch the cut surface in which case they really stand out… like these:



There is a less common class of nickel-iron meteorites known as ataxites which do not show these patterns because they’re composed principally of taenite with only microscopic lamellae of kamacite. Diagnostics then rest on chemical and other tests because there’s nothing much to see, unless inclusions are present… like these:



There are then other possibilities such as pallasites. Although these are “stony irons” and people often think of them as having globular crystalline deposits of olivine, that doesn’t apply to all pallasites. Anamolous ones or those outside the main group may principally show the metallic matrix, and it may also exhibit Widmanstatten figures like this example:



There are then other stony irons such as mesosiderites which, although nominally a broadly 50:50 mixture of nickel-iron and silicates, have an irregular composition which may principally show the metallic portions only. This kind of thing:



Unless your geologist was able to see Widmanstatten figures (which are virtually 100% confirmatory for meteorites) then he would have to rely on additional tests. At the simplest, things like analysis for nickel content and trace metals to check if the levels were consistent with meteoritic material, including the Iridium anomaly expected in meteorites. Also that there were not metals present which are unknown in meteorites. At a higher confirmatory level, things like oxygen isotope analysis.

My questions are not just to challenge what you have been told. Your geologist friend may well be right (you say "State Geologist" although do you mean Dr Darrel W. Schmitz or someone else?), but you haven’t provided enough information to be sure either way. Nevertheless, asking about the value of a claimed meteorite without more information about its possible typology and how it has been tested is a bit like asking “’I’ve got an old oil painting… how much is it worth?”

 

[outlaws15]

Wow
Thats cool information
Thanks


QUOTE=Red-Coat;6655651]You are broadly correct that meteorites are priced by weight but that’s a very simplistic answer which doesn’t reflect the true situation. They’re priced by weight within the typology categories that relate to their composition. Common types will be priced at a few cents per gram all the way up to rare types which might command $50,000 per gram (although those won’t be magnetic). The value is also dependent on whether a meteorite can be said to be ‘paired’ with other known specimens (ie was part of a fall from which we already have specimens) or represents a new fall not previously recorded.

For paired specimens the value will be lower if the total known fall weight is substantial; and higher if the total known fall weight is small. For a new fall, the value rises further if the specimen has been typed, is recorded in the database of the Meteoritical Society, and has been granted an approved name. Overlaid on those prices are additional things which affect their value such as the presence of interesting features or mineral inclusions.

From the pictures posted so far, I see nothing which is particularly diagnostic for a meteorite and, frankly, I don’t usually put much credence in an unnamed geologist saying that it is, unless he has some specific expertise in meteoritics and/or further details of the tests performed are provided.

You say that he has “cut into it”. Good. But you have neither told us nor pictured what he found, except to say that it’s “nickel-iron”. That covers a multitude of types including the most common meteorites based on recovered weights (as opposed to most common by frequency of find). With the exception of some very specific meteorite types, I would defy anyone (even a geologist) to identify a meteorite just by looking. You also say “it was a pretty easy determination”. So, either he observed some specific diagnostic features, or he conducted further tests beyond just looking. What further tests did he conduct, if any?

The most common nickel-iron types are hexahedrites and octahedrites composed principally of kamacite and taenite (both of which are nickel-iron alloys). The way that they crystallise usually creates a distinctive geometric pattern known as “Widmanstatten figures”. Sometimes you can see these (or the boundaries between the two alloys) without enhancement but more usually, the diagnostic is to etch the cut surface in which case they really stand out… like these:

View attachment 1889391 View attachment 1889392

There is a less common class of nickel-iron meteorites known as ataxites which do not show these patterns because they’re composed principally of taenite with only microscopic lamellae of kamacite. Diagnostics then rest on chemical and other tests because there’s nothing much to see, unless inclusions are present… like these:

View attachment 1889393 View attachment 1889394

There are then other possibilities such as pallasites. Although these are “stony irons” and people often think of them as having globular crystalline deposits of olivine, that doesn’t apply to all pallasites. Anamolous ones or those outside the main group may principally show the metallic matrix, and it may also exhibit Widmanstatten figures like this example:

View attachment 1889395

There are then other stony irons such as mesosiderites which, although nominally a broadly 50:50 mixture of nickel-iron and silicates, have an irregular composition which may principally show the metallic portions only. This kind of thing:

View attachment 1889396

Unless your geologist was able to see Widmanstatten figures (which are virtually 100% confirmatory for meteorites) then he would have to rely on additional tests. At the simplest, things like analysis for nickel content and trace metals to check if the levels were consistent with meteoritic material, including the Iridium anomaly expected in meteorites. Also that there were not metals present which are unknown in meteorites. At a higher confirmatory level, things like oxygen isotope analysis.

My questions are not just to challenge what you have been told. Your geologist friend may well be right (you say "State Geologist" although do you mean Dr Darrel W. Schmitz or someone else?), but you haven’t provided enough information to be sure either way. Nevertheless, asking about the value of a claimed meteorite without more information about its possible typology and how it has been tested is a bit like asking “’I’ve got an old oil painting… how much is it worth?”[/QUOTE]

 

[ArfieBoy]

Wow, guys! I'm learning a lot from the explanations and questions on this thread! Thanks, and keep it up. Ripcon... thanks very much for posting!

 

[Ripcon]

Your specimen looks like meteorites I have seen from [FONT="]Russia’s "Dronino" strewnfield (iron / nickel). I have also found similar in Arizona (Franconia strewn field). Of course, none of us can really tell from a photo, but it looks good. [/FONT]

Thanks, Terry!

 

[Ripcon]

Wow, guys! I'm learning a lot from the explanations and questions on this thread! Thanks, and keep it up. Ripcon... thanks very much for posting!

Thanks, ArfieBoy

 

[smokeythecat]

Well, I like it. From the meteorites i've seen from the west, this looks like a winner to me. Price goes up by size.

 

[Ripcon]

Wow
Thats cool information
Thanks


QUOTE=Red-Coat;6655651]You are broadly correct that meteorites are priced by weight but that’s a very simplistic answer which doesn’t reflect the true situation. They’re priced by weight within the typology categories that relate to their composition. Common types will be priced at a few cents per gram all the way up to rare types which might command $50,000 per gram (although those won’t be magnetic). The value is also dependent on whether a meteorite can be said to be ‘paired’ with other known specimens (ie was part of a fall from which we already have specimens) or represents a new fall not previously recorded.

For paired specimens the value will be lower if the total known fall weight is substantial; and higher if the total known fall weight is small. For a new fall, the value rises further if the specimen has been typed, is recorded in the database of the Meteoritical Society, and has been granted an approved name. Overlaid on those prices are additional things which affect their value such as the presence of interesting features or mineral inclusions.

From the pictures posted so far, I see nothing which is particularly diagnostic for a meteorite and, frankly, I don’t usually put much credence in an unnamed geologist saying that it is, unless he has some specific expertise in meteoritics and/or further details of the tests performed are provided.

You say that he has “cut into it”. Good. But you have neither told us nor pictured what he found, except to say that it’s “nickel-iron”. That covers a multitude of types including the most common meteorites based on recovered weights (as opposed to most common by frequency of find). With the exception of some very specific meteorite types, I would defy anyone (even a geologist) to identify a meteorite just by looking. You also say “it was a pretty easy determination”. So, either he observed some specific diagnostic features, or he conducted further tests beyond just looking. What further tests did he conduct, if any?

The most common nickel-iron types are hexahedrites and octahedrites composed principally of kamacite and taenite (both of which are nickel-iron alloys). The way that they crystallise usually creates a distinctive geometric pattern known as “Widmanstatten figures”. Sometimes you can see these (or the boundaries between the two alloys) without enhancement but more usually, the diagnostic is to etch the cut surface in which case they really stand out… like these:

View attachment 1889391 View attachment 1889392

There is a less common class of nickel-iron meteorites known as ataxites which do not show these patterns because they’re composed principally of taenite with only microscopic lamellae of kamacite. Diagnostics then rest on chemical and other tests because there’s nothing much to see, unless inclusions are present… like these:

View attachment 1889393 View attachment 1889394

There are then other possibilities such as pallasites. Although these are “stony irons” and people often think of them as having globular crystalline deposits of olivine, that doesn’t apply to all pallasites. Anamolous ones or those outside the main group may principally show the metallic matrix, and it may also exhibit Widmanstatten figures like this example:

View attachment 1889395

There are then other stony irons such as mesosiderites which, although nominally a broadly 50:50 mixture of nickel-iron and silicates, have an irregular composition which may principally show the metallic portions only. This kind of thing:

View attachment 1889396

Unless your geologist was able to see Widmanstatten figures (which are virtually 100% confirmatory for meteorites) then he would have to rely on additional tests. At the simplest, things like analysis for nickel content and trace metals to check if the levels were consistent with meteoritic material, including the Iridium anomaly expected in meteorites. Also that there were not metals present which are unknown in meteorites. At a higher confirmatory level, things like oxygen isotope analysis.

My questions are not just to challenge what you have been told. Your geologist friend may well be right (you say "State Geologist" although do you mean Dr Darrel W. Schmitz or someone else?), but you haven’t provided enough information to be sure either way. Nevertheless, asking about the value of a claimed meteorite without more information about its possible typology and how it has been tested is a bit like asking “’I’ve got an old oil painting… how much is it worth?”

[/QUOTE]

This is good information, Thanks....I'm from Mississippi and we have a Gem and Mineral Show coming up in January. I'll take it there as well. Lots of information to get. Photos don't do justice sometimes....The Physics and Astronomy Dept. at the University of Southern Mississippi examined my specimen as well and said it's definitely a meteorite. I realize that many people probably come on this site trying to determine the authenticity of a specimen. I'm not one of those.

 

[Red-Coat]

This is good information, Thanks....I'm from Mississippi and we have a Gem and Mineral Show coming up in January. I'll take it there as well. Lots of information to get. Photos don't do justice sometimes....The Physics and Astronomy Dept. at the University of Southern Mississippi examined my specimen as well and said it's definitely a meteorite. I realize that many people probably come on this site trying to determine the authenticity of a specimen. I'm not one of those.

Well, that's great but you've kinda ducked my questions.

The point I was making is the the process(es) for positively determining a meteorite will, inevitably, generate an opinion on the typology of the specimen and that in turn will be part of the determination for its potential value.

So, my questions would still be... what exactly was said about it beyond it being "nickel-iron", what tests were actually performed, and what does the interior look like?

If you intend to sell the specimen, you won't achieve its full collector value without a full typology from a recognised source of expertise and the way to maximise its value would be to submit a report to MetSoc together with a small type specimen and see if you can get an official name allocated to it. Meteorites are usually named for the nearest Post Office town to where they're found, or the nearest geological/terrain feature in remote areas. You can't buck those rules or, say, request it be named after yourself but you would get recorded in the MetSoc Bulletin as finder (more accurately 'discoverer' in this case) and the holder of the main mass if you kept more than half of it.

There are plenty of laboratories who will provide type certification, but a submission to MetSoc would require some competent assistance. There are several dealers who offer such assistance at no cost, but usually on the basis that they get rights to the sale of specimens after negotiating a price with you. They will also have a view on whether there's more profit to be had from selling it in slices rather than as an individual, and be able to get it cut and prepared if necessary. Some folks like to retain a piece that represents the main mass (doesn't need to be half of it... just the largest intact piece) and sell the rest as slices.

 

[Charl]

At least by appearance, and saying it was found in the desert SW, I thought it looked like a Canyon Diablo individual. Of course that gut impression is meaningless, but if a meteorite, that’s just something that popped into my head, because I’ve seen lots of Canyon Diablos and I thought it could pass as one in these photos. And it exists in relative abundance. Don’t believe you can hunt within many miles of the crater, just saying my initial reaction, before reading the many cogent replies, was “looks like a Canyon Diablo”.