Show simple item record

dc.creatorEhlmann, Arthur J.
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-12T18:09:46Z
dc.date.available2024-02-12T18:09:46Z
dc.date.issued1994-05-11
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/63053
dc.descriptionLetter from Art Ehlmann to Tim McCoy discussing the meteorite samples and asking for clarification on the numberings of the specimens.
dc.relationOscar Monnig Papers (MS 124)
dc.rightsPrior written permission from TCU Special Collections required to use any document or photograph.
dc.sourceSeries III, Box 06, Fayette Co., Texas correspondence folder
dc.subjectMeteorite
dc.subjectFayette County meteorite
dc.subjectFayette County (Tex.)
dc.subjectBluff meteorites
dc.subjectMcCoy, Tim (Timothy J.)
dc.titleCorrespondence from Art Ehlmann to Tim McCoy, May 11, 1994
dc.typeDocument
dc.description.transcriptionMay 11, 1994 Dear Tim, Just finished talking to you on the phone so l'lI try to get this stuff to you. I'm confused on the numbering of the two specimens of Bluff (a) you took back. Bluff (a) should all be numbered M52! The designation M53 is for Marion, low. If the number on the specimen is M53.3, it should probably be M52.3, which is a 31.7g specimen of Bluff (a). The location of Bluff (a) and (b) is not clear. I am reasonably sure that the enclosed map from the files shows 2 locations from which Bluff specimens were taken (labelled 1 and 2 in red on the map) but that's all that can be derived from the map. I have no idea where Oscar got the 6 specimens of the Bluff (a) on the card. These 2 sites are the only ones I can find. Also there is correspondance [correspondence] in the files that suggest a general canvassing of the area so that many of these specimens were probably sent by farmers to Oscar by mail. The locations do not exist. Also for your information, I have enclosed another map of Fayette County with the plots of the 2 Bluff locations shown on the detailed map (near La Grange) and also the 2 locations of the Round Top specimens indicated on Oscar's map. Note in our last paper (Meteoritics, V29, #1, p.71) that the 3rd Round Top specimen's location is not known either. have found over the years that Oscar would visit lots of farms around an area and would solicite [solicit] any "funny" stones from the various farmers. That's probably why some locations are unknown. We discussed why M143.1 was not sectioned - it and M143.2 are the two that fit together perfectly. Again on Travis County - the stone labelled M22.8 is obviously not correctly labelled. It is not an M22. You can easily tell by just looking at the cut face and see it is not a shock-blackened M22. Glenn made a mistake on this one! Also, the section matches the specimen very well so I know Tom didn't mislabel it. As for M22.32, a comparison of the texture in the section with the cut block looks OK but the shape of the block and the section outline is not the same. Looks like Tom lost some of it in preparation so the section outline is smaller than the cut block. I am concluding that the section is not mislabelled. It is not shock-blackened. I'm assuming it is another specimen that shouldn't have been classified as an M22. Glenn, of course, did that classification without cutting the specimens. As for the other M22's that were not sectioned - I suspect there may be others in the M22's that are not shock-blackened. Until they are cut, it may be difficult to tell. Glenn didn't make many mistakes so I'm assuming they are difficult to classify from hand specimen. I believe that takes care of all the current questions. Cheers! Art Ehlmann


Files in this item

Thumbnail
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
  • Records of the Monnig Meteorite Gallery [2825]
    The files are arranged alphabetically, usually according to the location of discovery of the meteorite. The files contain correspondence and research material on the meteorites in the collection.

Show simple item record