[Rockhounds] Olmiites
Luka Berkovic
lukasminerals at iburst.co.za
Thu Feb 5 08:14:44 PST 2009
i bought a flat of 3cm olmiites from the October 2008 find, pretty good
specimens I think, I have 21 of them, would anyone be interested, I am
asking $150 per a piece is anyone interested or know of anyone who could be
interested I would go as low as $100 per a piece if someone took them all
Luka Berkovic
-----Original Message-----
From: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
[mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] On Behalf Of
rockhounds-request at lists.drizzle.com
Sent: 05 February 2009 02:54 AM
To: rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com
Subject: Rockhounds Digest, Vol 57, Issue 4
Send Rockhounds mailing list submissions to
rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rockhounds-request at lists.drizzle.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
rockhounds-owner at lists.drizzle.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Rockhounds digest..."
[Rockhounds-Digest]
Today's Topics:
1. Re: glacial erratics (was Stonehenge geology resolved)
(Kreigh Tomaszewski)
2. Re: glacial erratics (was Stonehenge geology resolved) (Lanny R)
3. Glacial erratic, Texan Erratica (J. R. Hodel)
4. Okotoks erratic put together again (R. Peter Richards)
5. TUCSON! (John & Gloria Cornish)
6. Re: Okotoks erratic put together again (Jay Bates)
7. RE: Okotoks erratic put together again (Gary Brown)
8. RE: Texas collectors MR supplement (Rik Dillen)
9. Re: Texas collectors MR supplement (Sandra B. Gee)
10. Re: Okotoks erratic put together again (Lanny R)
11. Re: Okotoks erratic put together again (Lanny R)
12. RE: Texas collectors MR supplement (Rik Dillen)
13. Re: Okotoks erratic put together again (Jay Bates)
14. Re: Texas collectors MR supplement (Tim Jokela Jr.)
15. Re: MR Texas Supplement (Darryl Powell)
16. Re: Texas collectors MR supplement (Sandra B. Gee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:25:50 -0500
From: Kreigh Tomaszewski <Kreigh at Tomaszewski.net>
Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] glacial erratics (was Stonehenge geology
resolved)
To: gbrown at catspaw-minerals.com, "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing
list for rock and gem collectors"
<rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Message-ID: <23656C8B-F263-11DD-8925-0005022E6413 at Tomaszewski.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/customcode/
Media.cfm?CFID=70816&CFTOKEN=28512484&TCE_Version=a&MediaFileName=natura
l-wonders.swf+Okotoks+Erratic+geology&hl=en&ct=clnk
"Weathering and erosion have split the rock in two."
On Tuesday, Feb 3, 2009, at 15:08 America/Detroit, Gary Brown wrote:
> Sounds like field trip time to me. Well, at least summer field trip
> time.
>
> Award to the first person to come up with a decent set of photos
> documenting
> what's-what with a bonus for a validating petrographic analysis of the
> two
> (or more) chunks.
>
> GcB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
> [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] On Behalf Of Lanny R
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:27 PM
> To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors
> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] glacial erratics (was Stonehenge geology
> resolved)
>
> I don't doubt your proposed possiblity Pete, just thinking numbers -- I
> haven't seen a whole lot of rocks broken and sagging in the middle.
> ....
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 19:19:13 -0800
From: Lanny R <lanny.r at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] glacial erratics (was Stonehenge geology
resolved)
To: "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
collectors" <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Message-ID: <F1B19CD9-48A5-4F92-8CCC-805AFE273C47 at roadrunner.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Pretty good work Bryan. That looks like they do match up; now I don't
feel that I have to drive up there and look for myself.
As to a glacier "randomly dropping" two huge rocks side by side.
Slight chance I would say if one thought of them only as two huge
rocks that just happened to get dropped there. If one was to think of
them as two huge rocks from a big "landslide" onto the top of the
glacier; it seems to me that they could be transported a long distance
and remain side by side. However, let's not make a continental glacier
to check this out. I would like to get back up to Banff and Jasper
before they get ground down to a bump on the land.
Regards,
Lanny
On Feb 3, 2009, at 5:31 PM, J Bryan Kramer wrote:
> Well I had a try at it based on this shot:
>
> <http://www.pbase.com/image/73508329>
>
> And came up with this:
>
> <http://upload.pbase.com/image/108852525>
>
> via photoshop CS4
>
> As for why assume it was one piece, how likely is it that a glacier
> would
> randomly drop two huge chunks of rock right next to each other.
> Occam's
> razor says it is probably the same rock.
>
> BK
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 17:34, GLENN ANDREWS <LIpumpkin at msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Any others care to express their opinion on this?
>>
>> Well, if its broken into two pieces how does that make it one
>> erratic?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Lanny R<mailto:lanny.r at roadrunner.com>
>> To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
>> collectors<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle.com
>> :%20A%20mailing%20list%20for%20rock%20and%20gem%20collectors>
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] glacial erratics (was Stonehenge geology
>> resolved)
>>
>>
>> I have a doubt about the "Big Rock," this Okotoks Erratic really
>> being
>> one rock broken into two pieces. First, I don't recall ever seeing a
>> large rock that I was sure had obviously broken into two pieces where
>> it had settled in the middle so that the two pieces dipped inwards.
>> Secondly, I can't see any match in the layers between the two pieces.
>> That might be just a problem of how it is shown in the photograph, so
>> that one can't really see them all that well. Thirdly, the piece on
>> the right is more broken up and has a lot of rusty layers, very
>> unlike the left piece.
>>
>> Any others care to express their opinion on this?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Lanny
>>
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:48 AM, pmodreski at aol.com<mailto:pmodreski at aol.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Neat website about that big rock, Kreigh!
>>>
>>>
>>> Some erratics are big. You might enjoy the size of the biggest one?
>>> ?
>>>
>>
http://culture.alberta.ca/museums/historicsiteslisting/okotokserratic/defaul
t.aspx
>> <
>>
http://culture.alberta.ca/museums/historicsiteslisting/okotokserratic/defaul
t.aspx
>>> ?
>>> ?
>>> and the interesting legend of how it split in two.?
>>> ?
>>> Kreigh?
>>>
>>>
>>> And, alas, I'm afraid your post was a great disillusionment to me,
>>> because I couple of years ago I had visited, and was very impressed
>>> by, the Madison, Carroll County, New Hampshire, glacial erratic, a
>>> N.H. State "Wayside Monument" and locally known as "the largest
>>> known glacial erratic".? It is,
>>>
>>>
>>> "Madison Boulder is a huge granite rock measuring 83 feet (25 m) in
>>> length, 23 feet (7.0 m) in height above the ground, and 37 feet (11
>>> m) in width. It weighs upwards of 5,000 tons."
>>>
>>> Your Okotoks Erratic "Big Rock" in Alberta has?clearly got it all
>>> beat,
>>>
>>> "The Okotoks Erratic weighs 16,500 tons. It measures 9 metres high,
>>> 41 metres long and 18 metres wide."
>>>
>>> and?evidently holds the world record, as is stated in the very good
>>> Wikipedia article about glacial erratics,
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_erratic<
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_erratic>
>>>
>>> Next time I'm in Alberta (never been there, actually), I've got to
>>> see it!
>>>
>>> Cheers, Pete
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>>> multipart/alternative
>>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>> text/html
>>> ---
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rockhounds at drizzle<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle> Mailing List
>>> Subscription Services:
>>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds<
>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds>
>>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html<
>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rockhounds at drizzle<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle> Mailing List
>> Subscription Services:
>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds<
>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds>
>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html<
>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html>
>>
>>
>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>> multipart/alternative
>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>> text/html
>> ---
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
>> Subscription Services:
>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ""It often seems to me that the night is much more alive and richly
> colored
> than the day."
>
> Vincent van Gogh
> J Bryan Krdmer
> North Florida, USA
> photos at:
> http://pbase.com/photoburner
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:35:25 -0800 (PST)
From: "J. R. Hodel" <jr50wv at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Rockhounds] Glacial erratic, Texan Erratica
To: deepskyspy at insightbb.com, rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com
Message-ID: <256027.62896.qm at web56306.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi:
I'm out here in Arizona, combining personal business (visiting dear cousin,
attending to retirement strategy) with visits to Tucson to indulge in
pointless desire of ultra-expensive yet beautiful rocks!
I agree that the photoshop work on the glacial erratic seems to indicate
that the two slabs of rock MAY be part of the same giant boulder - an ironic
use of the tool to prove factual things instead of to put my face on a gila
monster, with a giant tongue, and show it to everyone at my retirement
luncheon!
I also agree that Mineralogical Record tends to cater to the ultra-wealthy
portion of their subscriber base a little more than I would prefer, but
would point out that it is probably good business to support the
not-to-strange whims of the wealthy when continued quality publication might
one day depend upon the support of said wealthy subscribers.
I too would like to see frabjulous beautiful personally-collected specimens,
with photos of the digging, the muddy but victorious miner/collector, and
the finally cleaned and perfect specimen, and a description of the research
in dusty geographic and geologic maps in forgotten university research
libraries which led the collector(s) to their wonderful finds!
But the pretty pictures are also OK. I just hope they keep up the good
work. At least the Texan Collector edition wasn't the magazine itself,
which is still relatively intact and interesting. I even didn't hate the
goniometer edition much, they were interesting ancient scientific research
tools, after all.
Well, off to bed. Anyone who plans to be in Tucson, drop me a line, maybe
we can stroll among the fabulous crystals and fossils together, or,
alternatively, drink beer together with wonderful exotic Sonoran food!
KoR
JR
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:40:03 -0500
From: "R. Peter Richards" <rpr at heidelberg.edu>
Subject: [Rockhounds] Okotoks erratic put together again
To: "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
collectors" <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Message-ID: <7ACED341-098D-4B41-A8FB-46FD3C0AE3D5 at heidelberg.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=ISO-8859-1;delsp=yes;format=flowed
We've now seen two pretty convincing "reconstructions" of this
erratic. But if I'm not mistaken, both of them put the right half on
the left and vise versa. How did the two halves get moved to their
current configuration if the reconstructions reveal their original
orientation? I would find it much easier to believe that the rock
split in two after it was deposited by the glacier, and took its
current orientation primarily by settling of the ground underneath.
In that case, the left one should stay on the left in those
reconstructions.
Pete Richards
On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:31 PM, J Bryan Kramer wrote:
> Well I had a try at it based on this shot:
>
> <http://www.pbase.com/image/73508329>
>
> And came up with this:
>
> <http://upload.pbase.com/image/108852525>
>
> via photoshop CS4
>
> As for why assume it was one piece, how likely is it that a glacier
> would
> randomly drop two huge chunks of rock right next to each other.
> Occam's
> razor says it is probably the same rock.
>
> BK
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 17:34, GLENN ANDREWS <LIpumpkin at msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Any others care to express their opinion on this?
>>
>> Well, if its broken into two pieces how does that make it one
>> erratic?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Lanny R<mailto:lanny.r at roadrunner.com>
>> To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
>> collectors<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle.com
>> :%20A%20mailing%20list%20for%20rock%20and%20gem%20collectors>
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] glacial erratics (was Stonehenge geology
>> resolved)
>>
>>
>> I have a doubt about the "Big Rock," this Okotoks Erratic really
>> being
>> one rock broken into two pieces. First, I don't recall ever seeing a
>> large rock that I was sure had obviously broken into two pieces
>> where
>> it had settled in the middle so that the two pieces dipped inwards.
>> Secondly, I can't see any match in the layers between the two
>> pieces.
>> That might be just a problem of how it is shown in the
>> photograph, so
>> that one can't really see them all that well. Thirdly, the piece on
>> the right is more broken up and has a lot of rusty layers, very
>> unlike the left piece.
>>
>> Any others care to express their opinion on this?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Lanny
>>
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:48 AM,
>> pmodreski at aol.com<mailto:pmodreski at aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Neat website about that big rock, Kreigh!
>>>
>>>
>>> Some erratics are big. You might enjoy the size of the biggest one?
>>> ?
>>>
>> http://culture.alberta.ca/museums/historicsiteslisting/
>> okotokserratic/default.aspx
>> <
>> http://culture.alberta.ca/museums/historicsiteslisting/
>> okotokserratic/default.aspx
>>> ?
>>> ?
>>> and the interesting legend of how it split in two.?
>>> ?
>>> Kreigh?
>>>
>>>
>>> And, alas, I'm afraid your post was a great disillusionment to me,
>>> because I couple of years ago I had visited, and was very impressed
>>> by, the Madison, Carroll County, New Hampshire, glacial erratic, a
>>> N.H. State "Wayside Monument" and locally known as "the largest
>>> known glacial erratic".? It is,
>>>
>>>
>>> "Madison Boulder is a huge granite rock measuring 83 feet (25 m) in
>>> length, 23 feet (7.0 m) in height above the ground, and 37 feet (11
>>> m) in width. It weighs upwards of 5,000 tons."
>>>
>>> Your Okotoks Erratic "Big Rock" in Alberta has?clearly got it all
>>> beat,
>>>
>>> "The Okotoks Erratic weighs 16,500 tons. It measures 9 metres high,
>>> 41 metres long and 18 metres wide."
>>>
>>> and?evidently holds the world record, as is stated in the very good
>>> Wikipedia article about glacial erratics,
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_erratic<
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_erratic>
>>>
>>> Next time I'm in Alberta (never been there, actually), I've got to
>>> see it!
>>>
>>> Cheers, Pete
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>>> multipart/alternative
>>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>> text/html
>>> ---
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rockhounds at drizzle<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle> Mailing List
>>> Subscription Services:
>>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds<
>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds>
>>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html<
>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rockhounds at drizzle<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle> Mailing List
>> Subscription Services:
>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds<
>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds>
>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html<
>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html>
>>
>>
>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>> multipart/alternative
>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>> text/html
>> ---
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
>> Subscription Services:
>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ""It often seems to me that the night is much more alive and richly
> colored
> than the day."
>
> Vincent van Gogh
> J Bryan Krdmer
> North Florida, USA
> photos at:
> http://pbase.com/photoburner
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
___________________________________
R. Peter Richards
rpr at heidelberg.edu
Morphological crystallographer
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:36:14 -0800
From: "John & Gloria Cornish" <cornish at tfon.com>
Subject: [Rockhounds] TUCSON!
To: <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Message-ID: <200902040836.AA1255932082 at tfon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Everyone,
It's a nice if windy morning here in Tucson. Since my last post I've seen
several specimens that have really sent my heart all a'twitter. First were
some fine US wulfenites shown to me by a friend. Next came a terrific
dioptase. An elongated crystal about a 1/2 an inch wide and nearly 3 times
that long. There was a trace of associated cerrusite clinging to it towards
its base. It is darker colored as compared to the bright and shiny typical
material more often seen from Tsumeb. But its size, really impressive. There
were other specimens offered in the small lot and these sounded even more
spectacular. Another killer specimen was a fantastic Tsumeb azurite. It was
monstrous dark and brooding, its dark blackish blue color offset by its
complex form and large cabinet size made this the finest azurites I've
personally held. Neat, really neat rock! There were some fantastic fluorites
too, these come from the Erongos and had a neat sceptered shape. Complex
faces surrounded the stem
s and caps of the little inch and a quarter soft green colored wonders. I
saw a lot of about a hundred individuals.
These are the types of treasures that are here at the show. These and so
many more wonders await. In the section of building where I call home, my
neighbors are from all around the World and the things they offer...
fluorescent minerals, pegmatite minerals from Colorado and Pakistan,
meteorites, minerals from Russia, fossils from Wyoming and on and on!
It truly is incredible, all the natural treasures that are offered here in
Tucson!
Another great thing... those of you out there who have stopped by the room
to say hi! I'm posting these reports at Mcrocks.com and on the Rockhounds
list at Drizzle.com. From both sites, folks have come in to say hi and I've
really enjoyed meeting you all!
Well, it's getting late and I've got to get back. Today is going to be a
busy day! All the very best, take care!
John
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at http://www.tfon.com
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:38:56 -0800
From: Jay Bates <jaybates at rcn.com>
Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Okotoks erratic put together again
To: "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
collectors" <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Message-ID: <4989C4A0.4040809 at rcn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I can't believe how many people on this list question that the two parts
of the erratic do not fit together. How many geologic processes can you
think of where they would not match? If they did not match, now that
would be a big news. The two halves are very jointed and weathered. I
would think a better question could be are they even erratics? I think
they are erratics even though it is hard to imagine a glacier carrying
such broken up and jointed rock a long ways from their origin. When did
the glaciers melt in the area and could they have weathered that much in
that time since the glacier melted? I would assume they have been there
probably around 10,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. Is
10,000 years enough time to have that much weathering?
R. Peter Richards wrote:
> We've now seen two pretty convincing "reconstructions" of this
> erratic. But if I'm not mistaken, both of them put the right half on
> the left and vise versa. How did the two halves get moved to their
> current configuration if the reconstructions reveal their original
> orientation? I would find it much easier to believe that the rock
> split in two after it was deposited by the glacier, and took its
> current orientation primarily by settling of the ground underneath.
> In that case, the left one should stay on the left in those
> reconstructions.
>
> Pete Richards
>
>
> On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:31 PM, J Bryan Kramer wrote:
>
>> Well I had a try at it based on this shot:
>>
>> <http://www.pbase.com/image/73508329>
>>
>> And came up with this:
>>
>> <http://upload.pbase.com/image/108852525>
>>
>> via photoshop CS4
>>
>> As for why assume it was one piece, how likely is it that a glacier
>> would
>> randomly drop two huge chunks of rock right next to each other. Occam's
>> razor says it is probably the same rock.
>>
>> BK
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 17:34, GLENN ANDREWS <LIpumpkin at msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Any others care to express their opinion on this?
>>>
>>> Well, if its broken into two pieces how does that make it one erratic?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Lanny R<mailto:lanny.r at roadrunner.com>
>>> To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
>>> collectors<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle.com
>>> :%20A%20mailing%20list%20for%20rock%20and%20gem%20collectors>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] glacial erratics (was Stonehenge geology
>>> resolved)
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a doubt about the "Big Rock," this Okotoks Erratic really
>>> being
>>> one rock broken into two pieces. First, I don't recall ever seeing a
>>> large rock that I was sure had obviously broken into two pieces where
>>> it had settled in the middle so that the two pieces dipped inwards.
>>> Secondly, I can't see any match in the layers between the two pieces.
>>> That might be just a problem of how it is shown in the photograph, so
>>> that one can't really see them all that well. Thirdly, the piece on
>>> the right is more broken up and has a lot of rusty layers, very
>>> unlike the left piece.
>>>
>>> Any others care to express their opinion on this?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Lanny
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:48 AM,
>>> pmodreski at aol.com<mailto:pmodreski at aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Neat website about that big rock, Kreigh!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some erratics are big. You might enjoy the size of the biggest one?
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>
http://culture.alberta.ca/museums/historicsiteslisting/okotokserratic/defaul
t.aspx
>>>
>>> <
>>>
http://culture.alberta.ca/museums/historicsiteslisting/okotokserratic/defaul
t.aspx
>>>
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>> and the interesting legend of how it split in two.?
>>>> ?
>>>> Kreigh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, alas, I'm afraid your post was a great disillusionment to me,
>>>> because I couple of years ago I had visited, and was very impressed
>>>> by, the Madison, Carroll County, New Hampshire, glacial erratic, a
>>>> N.H. State "Wayside Monument" and locally known as "the largest
>>>> known glacial erratic".? It is,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Madison Boulder is a huge granite rock measuring 83 feet (25 m) in
>>>> length, 23 feet (7.0 m) in height above the ground, and 37 feet (11
>>>> m) in width. It weighs upwards of 5,000 tons."
>>>>
>>>> Your Okotoks Erratic "Big Rock" in Alberta has?clearly got it all
>>>> beat,
>>>>
>>>> "The Okotoks Erratic weighs 16,500 tons. It measures 9 metres high,
>>>> 41 metres long and 18 metres wide."
>>>>
>>>> and?evidently holds the world record, as is stated in the very good
>>>> Wikipedia article about glacial erratics,
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_erratic<
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_erratic>
>>>>
>>>> Next time I'm in Alberta (never been there, actually), I've got to
>>>> see it!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Pete
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>>>> multipart/alternative
>>>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>>> text/html
>>>> ---
>>>> --
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rockhounds at drizzle<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle> Mailing List
>>>> Subscription Services:
>>>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds<
>>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds>
>>>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>>>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html<
>>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rockhounds at drizzle<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle> Mailing List
>>> Subscription Services:
>>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds<
>>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds>
>>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html<
>>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>>> multipart/alternative
>>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>> text/html
>>> ---
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
>>> Subscription Services:
>>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
>>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ""It often seems to me that the night is much more alive and richly
>> colored
>> than the day."
>>
>> Vincent van Gogh
>> J Bryan Krdmer
>> North Florida, USA
>> photos at:
>> http://pbase.com/photoburner
>>
>>
>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>> multipart/alternative
>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>> text/html
>> ---
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
>> Subscription Services:
>> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
>> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
>
> ___________________________________
> R. Peter Richards
> rpr at heidelberg.edu
> Morphological crystallographer
>
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:53:06 -0600
From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown at catspaw-minerals.com>
Subject: RE: [Rockhounds] Okotoks erratic put together again
To: "'Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
collectors'" <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Message-ID: <EDD1156BAEFB444D9C89275E7BDB1481 at DS9>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii"
It's not that the right and left halves switched on the ground. It's the
angle that the photographs were taken from. I think both of us did the
shift since from the angle of the photograph it made the most sense.
gcb
-----Original Message-----
From: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
[mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] On Behalf Of R. Peter Richards
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:40 AM
To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors
Subject: [Rockhounds] Okotoks erratic put together again
We've now seen two pretty convincing "reconstructions" of this erratic. But
if I'm not mistaken, both of them put the right half on the left and vise
versa. How did the two halves get moved to their current configuration if
the reconstructions reveal their original orientation? I would find it much
easier to believe that the rock split in two after it was deposited by the
glacier, and took its
current orientation primarily by settling of the ground underneath.
In that case, the left one should stay on the left in those reconstructions.
Pete Richards
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:16:59 +0100
From: "Rik Dillen" <rik.dillen at skynet.be>
Subject: RE: [Rockhounds] Texas collectors MR supplement
To: "'Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
collectors'" <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Message-ID: <001e01c986ec$633f0c90$29bd25b0$@dillen at skynet.be>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="utf-8"
Tim et al,
I second your opinion completely. The supplement is nothing more than a nice
photo book with spectacular specimens, unreachable for 99 % of the
collectors. Besides the fact that the specimens on each page are owned by
the same person I see absolutely no connection, and this supplement does not
learn me anything. I'm not jealous because I have less money, I just want
such a magazine to emphasize more on education than on public relations of
wealthy individuals.
I would like much more effort on practical issues concerning mineral
collecting, articles on localities, "real" mineralogy (e.g. physical
properties of minerals and its background, scientific methods for mineral
identification (e.g. SEM, XRD, ore microscopy, the new emerging hand-held
Raman-spectrometry instruments etc.), tips and tricks for conservation and
dozens of other subjects that almost nearly never appear in this magazine.
Anyway, this supplement is certainly not what I was waiting for :>)
My two b,-cents...
Grts,
Rik DILLEN
E-mail rik.dillen at skynet.be
Homepage : http://users.skynet.be/rik.dillen
MINERANT 2009
9-10/5/2009
Antwerp Expo - Antwerpen - Belgium
www.minerant.org
-----Original Message-----
From: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
[mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] On Behalf Of Tim Jokela Jr.
Sent: dinsdag 3 februari 2009 5:50
To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors
Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Texas collectors MR supplement
Well I'll be damned, I'm not the only one!
I suspect it's completely funded by the wealthy Texas collectors themselves,
so not much point complaining to WW.
If MR did put funds or time into it... oy. Who needs more mindless rock
porn? Somebody add up the beryl, rhodo, and tourmaline photos, how boring,
same old stuff. Perhaps two specimens in there of interest to the real
collector. I'd far rather have a full-color supplement on what's new from
Mont Saint-Hilaire, or Laurium, or Kola.
NEWSFLASH TO MIN REC: if you've seen one 10k Pakistani aqua, you've seen
them all.
While it's lovely to know what the idle rich of Texas are up to, a vanity
mag is of no use to me whatsoever, and will be in my club's next auction.
Why MR is going down this path, I do not know. One suspects the editor is
getting far too cozy with his arrogant millionaire buddies.
Tim Jokela Jr
tjokela at execulink.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Goldstein" <deepskyspy at insightbb.com>
To: "Rockhounds List" <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:07 PM
Subject: [Rockhounds] Texas collectors MR supplement
I would like to hear comments from the list regarding the free Texas mineral
collectors freebie included with the current issue of Mineralogical Record.
It contains some pretty photos (a lot of Sweet Home rhodochrosites and
tourmaline crystals) along with a two paragraph bio from each of the 29
collectors (or couples). There are some nice fluorite specimens (one of my
favorite species) scattered among them.
While I like a bunch of pretty pictures as much as the next collector, I
would rather see those folks with deep pockets fund something more
educational or historically significant. How about a supplement of the best
self-collected specimens and the stories behind their discovery?
Alan G.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:19:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "Sandra B. Gee" <mp44sturm-rocks at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Texas collectors MR supplement
To: "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
collectors" <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Message-ID: <804635.68623.qm at web34201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
It is helpful that Wendell gets an idea of what subscribers to Mineralogical
Record want to see covered in future issues. It is an interesting idea
about having a pictorial essay on the best self collected specimens or the
best rarest speices collection. In the same way, I think that is how Min
Rec came up with the Texas Collectors Supplement.
According to the Notes From The Editor in the Jan/Feb 2009 issue, it was
input from some of the mineral societies in Texas that got the idea for the
Texas Collectors Supplement started.
A reason for the supplement directly from the Notes From The Editor,
b
More information about the Rockhounds
mailing list