What's new

possible achondrite find during extreem low watermark.

rockcollect

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2026
Messages
196
Reaction score
185
Golden Thread
0
Location
Lent
Detector(s) used
none
I have found a oriented like stone with what looks like remnant fusion crust (dark areas). this was found at a low water mark in the river. achondrite??I know the odds are 1 in a billion change but you never know.
 

Attachments

  • 20260715_093720.webp
    20260715_093720.webp
    3.1 MB · Views: 125
  • 20260716_083302.webp
    20260716_083302.webp
    1.4 MB · Views: 49
  • 20260716_083320.webp
    20260716_083320.webp
    1.7 MB · Views: 49
  • 20260716_083350.webp
    20260716_083350.webp
    1.4 MB · Views: 46
  • 20260716_083410.webp
    20260716_083410.webp
    1.3 MB · Views: 46
  • 20260716_083520.webp
    20260716_083520.webp
    1,004.3 KB · Views: 38
  • 20260716_083759.webp
    20260716_083759.webp
    1.4 MB · Views: 44
Last edited:
Upvote 4
looks like this diogenite
 

Attachments

  • maxresdefault.webp
    maxresdefault.webp
    73 KB · Views: 37
I have found a oriented like stone with what looks like remnant fusion crust (dark areas). this was found at a low water mark in the river. achondrite??I know the odds are 1 in a billion change but you never know.

That's not fusion crust. The only way to be sure it's an achondrite rather than an ordinary terrestrial rock would be from expert testing, not from visual examination by a non-expert. As you say, the odds are very much against you and there's nothing special about your rock to suggest that expert testing would be fruitful.

looks like this diogenite

Erm... no, it doesn't. Really, it doesn't.
 
That's not fusion crust. The only way to be sure it's an achondrite rather than an ordinary terrestrial rock would be from expert testing, not from visual examination by a non-expert. As you say, the odds are very much against you and there's nothing special about your rock to suggest that expert testing would be fruitful.



Erm... no, it doesn't. Really, it doesn't.
posted new photo's. and on my rock allot of areas have signs of melt. but i can not photograph that with my crappy phone. And i meant that the stone looks textural like the diogenite online. Is it true that on a meteorite you have the fusion crust on the outside but can you still see melt on a meteorite when the fusion crust has weathered away? And is it true that some achondrites have a melted outer layer and translucent but not a separate and black crust?
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course melt features can be seen in the interior of meteorites after the exterior fusion crust has weathered away.

In the early solar nebula, the floating cloud of dust that represented the building blocks of our solar system flash-melted and rapidly cooled to form the small spherical balls of rock we call chondrules. Those solidified chondritic droplets gradually accreted, mainly by gravity, to form primitive asteroidal bodies, and further accretion formed larger planetary bodies.

Stony meteorites classify into two groups: unmelted (chondrites); and melted (achondrites). It’s the melting that destroyed the chondrules. What distinguishes the two groups is that achondrites are from asteroidal bodies that became large enough to differentiate by melting, forming a core rich in iron and nickel, with a stony outer mantle containing little or none of those metals. That’s why we don’t see chondrules in rocks from our own large differentiated planet, and why native iron is a rarely found material.

There is a sub-category of chondritic meteorites which have undergone partial melting from nebular shockwaves, planetesimal collisions, or metamorphism of their parent bodies by heat generated from internal radioactive decay. This can result in thermal alteration of the edges of already-formed chondrules without entirely melting them.



Yes, some achondrites have a highly translucent or even fully transparent glassy fusion crust rather than the more typical opaque black or dark grey crust usually seen on chondrites. Notably lunar meteorites and some howardites (for which the parent body is almost certainly the Asteroid 4 Vesta).

Again, this is the result of differentiation which depletes the iron and nickel minerals responsible for dark and opaque fusion crusts. The residual minerals are rich in magnesian silicates such as pyroxene and calcium-rich plagioclase which melt to form a lighter coloured or colourless fusion crust that can be translucent or transparent. In lunar material, it’s usually calcium-rich anorthite, which melts into a slightly olive-green glass.

However, these finds of fusion crusts are extremely fragile and highly prone to erosional weathering. They’re almost exclusively seen on freshly-fallen meteorites, or those which have been preserved in dry deserts.



Your new pictures do not advance your cause. I see nothing which is inconsistent with terrestrial igneous/volcanic rocks.
 
Yes, of course melt features can be seen in the interior of meteorites after the exterior fusion crust has weathered away.

In the early solar nebula, the floating cloud of dust that represented the building blocks of our solar system flash-melted and rapidly cooled to form the small spherical balls of rock we call chondrules. Those solidified chondritic droplets gradually accreted, mainly by gravity, to form primitive asteroidal bodies, and further accretion formed larger planetary bodies.

Stony meteorites classify into two groups: unmelted (chondrites); and melted (achondrites). It’s the melting that destroyed the chondrules. What distinguishes the two groups is that achondrites are from asteroidal bodies that became large enough to differentiate by melting, forming a core rich in iron and nickel, with a stony outer mantle containing little or none of those metals. That’s why we don’t see chondrules in rocks from our own large differentiated planet, and why native iron is a rarely found material.

There is a sub-category of chondritic meteorites which have undergone partial melting from nebular shockwaves, planetesimal collisions, or metamorphism of their parent bodies by heat generated from internal radioactive decay. This can result in thermal alteration of the edges of already-formed chondrules without entirely melting them.



Yes, some achondrites have a highly translucent or even fully transparent glassy fusion crust rather than the more typical opaque black or dark grey crust usually seen on chondrites. Notably lunar meteorites and some howardites (for which the parent body is almost certainly the Asteroid 4 Vesta).

Again, this is the result of differentiation which depletes the iron and nickel minerals responsible for dark and opaque fusion crusts. The residual minerals are rich in magnesian silicates such as pyroxene and calcium-rich plagioclase which melt to form a lighter coloured or colourless fusion crust that can be translucent or transparent. In lunar material, it’s usually calcium-rich anorthite, which melts into a slightly olive-green glass.

However, these finds of fusion crusts are extremely fragile and highly prone to erosional weathering. They’re almost exclusively seen on freshly-fallen meteorites, or those which have been preserved in dry deserts.



Your new pictures do not advance your cause. I see nothing which is inconsistent with terrestrial igneous/volcanic rocks.
Thank you for the explenation, and for what its worth. i think nobody can indentify a possible meteorite from the crapy photo's i made. sorry for that. I have spent the past hours studying the rock with my 10x loupe and it is amazing what i saw. I has clear melt features and beautyfull melted grains and unknown melted black inclusions. Bummer i can not get that on picture you would be blown away by amazement. But the realization of possible finding a meteorite is a bit scary a very confusing. Would you agree i would be pretty rare cause of the shape and size and possible a achondrite. Do you have a primitive achondrite in your possesion would love to see photos of it upclose.
 
Thank you for the explenation, and for what its worth. i think nobody can indentify a possible meteorite from the crapy photo's i made. sorry for that.

In most cases that’s correct and, for stony achondrites, usually impossible even with the very best of photographs. Because their petrology is so similar to many Earth rocks, it takes expert testing to determine them as meteoritic rather than visual examination. You’re on a hiding to nothing trying to claim 'meteoritic' without that expert input.

I have spent the past hours studying the rock with my 10x loupe and it is amazing what i saw. I has clear melt features and beautyfull melted grains and unknown melted black inclusions. Bummer i can not get that on picture you would be blown away by amazement.

Sorry, but frankly, I sincerely doubt I would be blown away by amazement. I think you’re blowing your find out of all proportion. Melt features are common in igneous/volcanic rocks because… guess what?... they originated from molten magma.

But the realization of possible finding a meteorite is a bit scary a very confusing. Would you agree i would be pretty rare cause of the shape and size and possible a achondrite.

No, I don’t agree. I think you have an ordinary terrestrial rock.

Do you have a primitive achondrite in your possesion would love to see photos of it upclose.

Yes, I have several dozen with different classifications, mainly as slices rather than wholestones, but would need to take some close-up pictures. I don’t habitually document my collection in that way, and usually only take macro-photographs for cataloguing purposes so that I don’t have to worry about labels becoming separated from specimens.

But I wouldn’t be showing you anything you can’t find from the much more extensive examples you can find for yourself on the many excellent meteorite sites on the net (including from the MetSoc database).

Furthermore, you won't be seeing any features that aren't also commonly seen in many terrestrial rocks.

Has it not dawned on you that you have a serious issue with confirmation bias? Judging from your posting history, your obvious desperate desire to find a meteorite on your home turf is causing you to see every rock that you can't immediately identify as a possible candidate... and when they don;t have obvious meteoritic features, your backstop seems to be that they must be from rare classifications.
 
In most cases that’s correct and, for stony achondrites, usually impossible even with the very best of photographs. Because their petrology is so similar to many Earth rocks, it takes expert testing to determine them as meteoritic rather than visual examination. You’re on a hiding to nothing trying to claim 'meteoritic' without that expert input.



Sorry, but frankly, I sincerely doubt I would be blown away by amazement. I think you’re blowing your find out of all proportion. Melt features are common in igneous/volcanic rocks because… guess what?... they originated from molten magma.



No, I don’t agree. I think you have an ordinary terrestrial rock.



Yes, I have several dozen with different classifications, mainly as slices rather than wholestones, but would need to take some close-up pictures. I don’t habitually document my collection in that way, and usually only take macro-photographs for cataloguing purposes so that I don’t have to worry about labels becoming separated from specimens.

But I wouldn’t be showing you anything you can’t find from the much more extensive examples you can find for yourself on the many excellent meteorite sites on the net (including from the MetSoc database).

Furthermore, you won't be seeing any features that aren't also commonly seen in many terrestrial rocks.

Has it not dawned on you that you have a serious issue with confirmation bias? Judging from your posting history, your obvious desperate desire to find a meteorite on your home turf is causing you to see every rock that you can't immediately identify as a possible candidate... and when they don;t have obvious meteoritic features, your backstop seems to be that they must be from rare classifications.
Well well that's clear than thanks so much. i must admit that all my rocks untill totday where not meteorites!!!!! But when you don't try you won´t succeed. And trust me this rock is different but you probably don´t think so. Don´t forgett i found those two gold boxes where as evreyone thought i would not be gold. But sotheby's defently thinks differently about it. Anyway everyone in my inner circle says to me i got a good eye for things. I just keep on looking and searching because there are still lost treasures to be found as often proven on this forum. I won't bother you guys anymore with my boring rocks.
 
Last edited:
Without going to some effort and rummaging through all the storage boxes, here’s a few quick and dirty pictures of achondrite examples from my collection:

Ureilite (NWA 4471)
NWA 4471.webp


Diogenite (NWA 7977)
NWA 7977.webp


Howardite (NWA 2696)
NWA 2696.webp


Eucrite (NWA 2126)
NWA 2126.webp


Eucrite, polymict (NWA 1109)
NWA 1109.webp


Eucrite, polymict (NWA 8261)
NWA 8261.webp


Winonaite, a primitive achondrite but metal-rich (NWA 4024)
NWA 4024.webp


There were a couple of Brachinites in the same box - primitive achondrites but with their original chondritic texture destroyed by heating and partial melting:

NWA 3151
NWA 3151.webp


NWA 5435
NWA 5435.webp


Well well that's clear than thanks so much. i must admit that all my rocks untill totday where not meteorites!!!!! But when you don't try you won´t succeed. And trust me this rock is different but you probably don´t think so. Don´t forgett i found those two gold boxes where as evreyone thought i would not be gold. But sotheby's defently thinks differently about it. Anyway everyone in my inner circle says to me i got a good eye for things. I just keep on looking and searching because there are still lost treasures to be found as often proven on this forum. I won't bother you guys anymore with my boring rocks.

Not exactly a glowing testimony in relation to meteorite identification though! And might I just point out that you don’t have a Sotheby’s opinion, unless there have been further developments since you last posted. You found another box with similar styling on the Sotheby’s website which has one of (but not all of) the same marks as one of your boxes, which is hardly the same as “Sotheby’s definitely thinks differently about it”. You also said a “well known local antique dealer” said it was certainly gold which we shouldn’t doubt since he has been able to examine it in hand, but also that you “forgot to ask further questions” when he said it was “something very rare”. Don’t get me wrong… I’m really pleased when people make great finds, but accuracy is something I value greatly.
 
Without going to some effort and rummaging through all the storage boxes, here’s a few quick and dirty pictures of achondrite examples from my collection:

Ureilite (NWA 4471)
View attachment 2260001

Diogenite (NWA 7977)
View attachment 2260002

Howardite (NWA 2696)
View attachment 2260003

Eucrite (NWA 2126)
View attachment 2260004

Eucrite, polymict (NWA 1109)
View attachment 2260005

Eucrite, polymict (NWA 8261)
View attachment 2260006

Winonaite, a primitive achondrite but metal-rich (NWA 4024)
View attachment 2260007

There were a couple of Brachinites in the same box - primitive achondrites but with their original chondritic texture destroyed by heating and partial melting:

NWA 3151
View attachment 2260008

NWA 5435
View attachment 2260009



Not exactly a glowing testimony in relation to meteorite identification though! And might I just point out that you don’t have a Sotheby’s opinion, unless there have been further developments since you last posted. You found another box with similar styling on the Sotheby’s website which has one of (but not all of) the same marks as one of your boxes, which is hardly the same as “Sotheby’s definitely thinks differently about it”. You also said a “well known local antique dealer” said it was certainly gold which we shouldn’t doubt since he has been able to examine it in hand, but also that you “forgot to ask further questions” when he said it was “something very rare”. Don’t get me wrong… I’m really pleased when people make great finds, but accuracy is something I value greatly.
thanks for the sneek preview photo's. And my Cousin in zwitserland has contacted Sotheby's in Geneva and this is what they said:


-------- Message d'origine --------

De : "Rampersad, Sinead" <Sinead.Rampersad@sothebys.com>

Date : 15.07.26 13:14 (GMT+01:00)

À :

Cc : "Starp, Alexandra" <Alexandra.Starp@sothebys.com>

Objet : Sotheby's Pricing Platform submission RCGVIJQK



Dear Saskia,



Thank you for submitting your two lovely boxes to our pricing platform. We would be delighted to include your oval box in our upcoming auction of Fabergé, Gold Boxes & Vertu in Geneva this May at the below suggested estimate. I am confident that your artwork could perform very well at auction. Unfortunately, while the circular box you submitted is very lovely, as it features ivory which is a restricted material, we are unable to export and sell this piece.


The wanted it very much for there upcoming sale next may 2027. And they believe the oval box is A gold and enamel snuff box, probably François Claude Théremin or Frères Théremin, Berlin, circa 1785/90. They have given it a massive astimate.
 
Last edited:
The wanted it very much for there upcoming sale next may 2027. And they believe the oval box is A gold and enamel snuff box, probably François Claude Théremin or Frères Théremin, Berlin, circa 1785/90. They have given it a massive astimate.

That's fantastic! Well done, and good luck if you decide to sell.
 
That's fantastic! Well done, and good luck if you decide to sell.
thanks, this is my best buy ever and probably will be the only one best buy. P.S. concerning the rock i am not sure what it is, i have more succes with antiques as with finding that one elusive meteorite. So better to just look for cool rocks instead. but won't bother you with them. if i find some cool antique i will let it know. cheers.
 
Last edited:
Interesting find !
 
here some photo's of the stone wet.
 

Attachments

  • 20260720_191004.webp
    20260720_191004.webp
    1.7 MB · Views: 25
  • 20260720_191011.webp
    20260720_191011.webp
    1.6 MB · Views: 22
  • 20260720_191018.webp
    20260720_191018.webp
    1.5 MB · Views: 26
  • 20260720_191109.webp
    20260720_191109.webp
    1.7 MB · Views: 26
  • 20260720_191118.webp
    20260720_191118.webp
    1.7 MB · Views: 28
ventifact or oriented achondrite?
 

Attachments

  • 20260720_195701.webp
    20260720_195701.webp
    1.5 MB · Views: 21
  • 20260720_195724.webp
    20260720_195724.webp
    1.3 MB · Views: 25
  • 20260720_195802.webp
    20260720_195802.webp
    1.2 MB · Views: 21
  • 20260720_195820.webp
    20260720_195820.webp
    1.4 MB · Views: 25
  • 20260720_195921.webp
    20260720_195921.webp
    1.3 MB · Views: 17
  • 20260720_195934.webp
    20260720_195934.webp
    1.2 MB · Views: 19
  • 20260720_195952.webp
    20260720_195952.webp
    1.6 MB · Views: 22
  • 20260720_195958.webp
    20260720_195958.webp
    1.6 MB · Views: 23
  • 20260720_200027.webp
    20260720_200027.webp
    1,000.7 KB · Views: 22
  • 20260720_200009.webp
    20260720_200009.webp
    1.2 MB · Views: 21
Thanks for all the responses but i just found out what my stone is.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom