<p>Video evidence won't be conclusive. However the odds are stacked against you...</p>
<p>Meteorites are <em>rare</em>, far rarer than gold, even rarer than diamonds, (though unlike gold and diamonds they can be found anywhere). (Source <a href="https://geology.com/meteorites/meteorite-identification.shtml" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Geoffrey Notkin</a>)  Geoffrey says that even after a visual inspection has identified a potential meteorite, less than 1% are confirmed by a laboratory.</p>
<p>Of your two stones, the one that isn't attracted to a magnet doesn't seem to be a meteorite. Geoffrey says that nearly all meteorites are asteroidal and contain significant amounts of iron and nickel, so are attracted to magnets. Secondly, the density: most meteorites are significantly denser than Earth rocks, owing to the iron content and the lack of air bubbles. Thirdly larger meteorites often have regmaglypts and stony meteorites always will have a fusion crust, though this may erode away with time. If the crust has eroded the meteorite may appear rusted.  And lastly, meteorites contain flakes of iron and often contain round colourful chondrules. (<a href="https://aerolite.org/about/suspected-meteorite-education/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a>)</p>
<p>I don't see any regmaglypts on your sample, and there is little sign of a crust. You should grind off an edge to see if a fusion crust, metallic flakes or chondrules are present. Washington university has some information about <a href="https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/identification/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">identifying meteorites</a>.</p>
<p>If the stone does show these features, then you will need to get it tested (in Azerbaijan or elsewhere) to confirm your suspicions. A meteorite can <em>only</em> be proven in a lab.  Costs are around 100-200 dollars.  Though the first step is to send them photographs for a preliminary visual judgement. (of course, that is a paid service too).  I am hesitant to actually recommend this as the chance of the stone being a meteorite is so low that the expected return on your investment is surely negative.</p>
<p>My <em>best guess</em> is that the first stone is a piece of magnetite, ie a &quot;Lodestone&quot;, and the second is flint.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-30T11:30:06.097Z
I'm guessing "remaglphs" and "remaglyphs" are both mis-spellings of "[remaglpyt](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regmaglypt)"? It would be useful to link to a definition of both that and "chondrule", since both are pretty niche words.
IMSoP
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-30T15:24:22.113Z
"remaglpyt" is *also* a misspelling of "regmaglypt" :) (Not trying to be mean, that word seems to defy correct typing.)
chepner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-30T15:29:51.987Z
I think I have it right now.  If you spot spelling mistakes, please use the "edit" button to correct them.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-30T23:22:09.380Z
"Meteorites are rare, far rarer than gold, **even rarer than diamonds**" from what authoritative source are you supporting this off-hand assertion? If I walk around a random open desert, I am always more likely to find diamonds laying around on the surface than I am meteors? If I collect dust accumulating on a large flat roof for a year, there will be more microdiamonds than micrometeorites? Did you just make this up or is it a supportable fact? If so, could you add a supporting link so we know it's true?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-30T23:40:43.907Z
I'm not finding the expression "nearly all" anywhere in your Geoffrey Notkin link. Can you add a block quote to show what the author actually DID say about this, so we can understand how "nearly all" is a valid paraphrase? Perhaps consider adding a proper scientific link which will contain an actual percentage? If you really meant to say "most" then discounting one of the samples merely because it's not substantially magnetic seems unscientific.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-30T23:40:49.657Z
There are plenty of nonmagnetic meteorites! They are just *hard to find* by the folks with metal detectors, or those dragging magnets over the ground trying to collect meteorites.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-31T00:19:35.857Z
and "asteroidal" ≠ magnetic, cf: [tiny diamonds in meteorite "signature of a long-lost planet": why come to Earth in 2008?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/25988/7982)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-31T10:57:38.453Z
@uhoh The assertions here are sourced in the links included in the answer.  Those parts that are my opinion are marked as such namely "I don't see regmaglypts" and "My best guess is..." --- actually the line "they can be found anywhere" is not sourced, and while I think it is true, you are much more likely to find meteorites places in which there isn't any soil, such as Antarctica or North Africa.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-31T11:03:20.730Z
While there are non magnetic meteorites, there are an *awful* lot more non-magnetic earth stones.  if a stone doesn't have a fusion crust, isn't magnetic, (such as stone 2) what reason is there to suppose it is a meteorite? If it is magnetic (stone 1) then does it contain native iron? If it doesn't (and is, for example magnetite) what reason is there to suppose it is a meteorite?
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-31T11:07:51.810Z
Re diamonds:  yes, diamonds are not that rare...  that is a bit of rhetoric  Many people have a diamond at home, and most towns have shops selling them. This is rhetoric, it makes the point that meteorites are rare, and rarer than something many people assume is a particularly rare stone, even if diamond is not exceptionally uncommon.  Emerald is rarer than diamond.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-31T12:33:04.500Z
let's see where this one goes... [What fraction of meteorites found on Earth are for practical purposes non-magnetic?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/50330/7982)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-31T12:44:21.437Z
That's not the point.  The point is what evidence is there that these stones are meteorites?
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-01T03:52:54.050Z
I try to avoid using "the point" because implies there can be only one point and it belongs to the person saying "the point". One of my points is that I am currently unconvinced that "Meteorites are... even rarer than diamonds" on Earth's surface. Certainly for 1 kg and above meteorites will win by a landslide! And at the low end, say 1 mg and below, I still think there's more meteoric particles than diamonds on Earth's surface. I think this factoid is fiction; can you support it by *directly quoting from an authoritative source?*
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-17T15:15:18.710Z
rarer still; [meteorites with diamonds inside](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/16/world/space-diamond-lonsdaleite-scn/index.html)!
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-29T12:41:50.153Z
2022-08-30T11:56:24.850Z
2022-08-30T11:56:24.850Z
James K
<p>The question of ‘meteorite’ versus ‘meteowrong’ is common, because people have incentive, and fertile imaginations. As you can guess, most bystanders are finding meteowrongs.</p>
<p>You had enough background and foresight to check using a magnet- progress, but not conclusive. Some earthly minerals are magnetic, while some meteorites (most achondrites, including the HEDs- not that rare) are nonmagnetic.</p>
<p>Some meteorites show fusion crust, and possibly regmaglypts, some don’t. Virtually all recovered meteorites have experienced some breakup and/or erosion during entry, and have fresher surfaces. This includes the rear surface of a meteor that by chance had a stable shape and didn’t tumble, and the interiors of weak meteorites. And let’s not forget chipping upon ground impact, let alone weathering on terrestrial exposure.</p>
<p>If one of your samples shows a fresh surface due to fracture/chipping, petrology may be taken as one kind of evidence. Most (but not all) meteorites are breccias, possibly gabbros- they’ve been formed by unifying pebbles, dust, possibly cobbles on a large parent body. This may be visible as a grain texture… or not. You may need a magnifier for fine breccias, and there are meteorites that are monolithic (irons, rare examples of chondrites, and again, some of the HEDs). The oddest grains are chondrules- sub-millimeter to ~mm spheres, spheroids, plus fragments and composites. These have few terrestrial equivalents. Unfortunately a fair number of meteorites never had/have chondrules.</p>
<p>Density is a reasonable test… except it, too, is not conclusive either way, and has testing issues. It’s easy enough to weigh a sample, but not to state the volume of an oblong/composite/whatever. Meteoriticists use, instead of water displacement (might affect some minerals) a ‘tank’ of fine plastic beads. The before-after difference gives volume, and it’s straightforward- though possibly annoying- to clear all beads afterwards. And who knows, there might be some stereophotometry now that can give some volume number if the object is a suitable shape. In any case, most meteorites are significantly denser (~3.2 g/cc) than most Earth rock… except the meteorites that aren’t.</p>
<p>Ultimately, you’ll need a chemical assay to identify the meteorite class, and thus positively ID the sample as a meteorite. Most meteorites have ‘chondritic’ composition- no loss of siderophiles to a core, very low loss of lithophiles to a crust, low loss of chalcophiles, and more atmophiles than Earth rock. …Except irons, which were the core, HEDs/Martian/Lunar meteorites which were the crust, and miscellaneous other achondrites. A decent chem analysis would still determine irons, ureilites, aubrites, etc. There’s a chance a detailed analysis would be necessary, but the initial results would likely point that out, rather than reject the stone.</p>
<p>Good luck with your two examples, but be prepared for disappointment. Even working meteoriticists can’t tell in the field, and await lab results for a positive ID.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-01T03:44:45.353Z
potentially of interest: [What fraction of meteorites found on Earth are for practical purposes non-magnetic?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/50330/7982)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-30T13:08:31.363Z
2022-08-30T13:08:31.363Z
caInstrument
<p>I found 2 stones in my village. One of them is magnet attractive, well-shaped, no bubbles etc. I just want to clarify if it is meteorite, but in my country (Azerbaijan) there's not such a lab. Is it possible to send a video of this stone to some foreign labs?</p>
<p>Here's the video links:</p>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/744149565" rel="noreferrer">Stone 1</a></li>
<li><a href="https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/744150752" rel="noreferrer">Stone 2</a></li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-29T12:04:11.433Z
The answers should prove useful for anyone anywhere, assuming we do find some person or group that is willing to review random images and pronounce yes/no.
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-29T12:04:36.927Z
@Fred that's a problem with your web browser or how you are (mis)using it.
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-29T22:21:42.340Z
I remember a well-written website which had a lot of good information on meteorites and meteorite identification.  Its author got this question — "Have I found a meteorite?" — all the time, and the site had a precomposed answer: "No."  (That is, without even examining your sample.  They're that rare, and the chances of anyone actually having found one are that low.)
Steve Summit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-30T01:26:38.997Z
Obligitory [XKCD](https://xkcd.com/1723/) and the [diagram](https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/self-test-check-list/) it originally linked to.
user121330
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-30T23:44:58.007Z
@user121330 I think you can base a proper answer on the second link, while of course fulling one's obligation to link to the appropriate obligatory XKCD.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-31T00:04:17.127Z
@uhoh Link only answers are frowned upon, and I have little expertise in the field. While I pontificate loquaciously, I expect that I couldn't say it better than the expert. I do appreciate the recognition that goes with fulfilling an internet obligation though. ;-)
user121330
<meteor><meteorite>
How can I identify if my stone is meteorite?
Óðinn Wisdom
# How can I identify if my stone is meteorite?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-08-29)

I found 2 stones in my village. One of them is magnet attractive, well-shaped, no bubbles etc. I just want to clarify if it is meteorite, but in my country (Azerbaijan) there's not such a lab. Is it possible to send a video of this stone to some foreign labs?

Here's the video links:

1. [Stone 1](https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/744149565)
2. [Stone 2](https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/744150752)

**Tags:** meteor, meteorite

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The answers should prove useful for anyone anywhere, assuming we do find some person or group that is willing to review random images and pronounce yes/no.  
> **username_1**: @Fred that's a problem with your web browser or how you are (mis)using it.  
> **username_2**: I remember a well-written website which had a lot of good information on meteorites and meteorite identification.  Its author got this question — "Have I found a meteorite?" — all the time, and the site had a precomposed answer: "No."  (That is, without even examining your sample.  They're that rare, and the chances of anyone actually having found one are that low.)  
> **username_3**: Obligitory [XKCD](https://xkcd.com/1723/) and the [diagram](https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/self-test-check-list/) it originally linked to.  
> **username_4**: @username_3 I think you can base a proper answer on the second link, while of course fulling one's obligation to link to the appropriate obligatory XKCD.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 Link only answers are frowned upon, and I have little expertise in the field. While I pontificate loquaciously, I expect that I couldn't say it better than the expert. I do appreciate the recognition that goes with fulfilling an internet obligation though. ;-)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2022-08-29. Score: 8

Video evidence won't be conclusive. However the odds are stacked against you...

Meteorites are *rare*, far rarer than gold, even rarer than diamonds, (though unlike gold and diamonds they can be found anywhere). (Source [Geoffrey Notkin](https://geology.com/meteorites/meteorite-identification.shtml)) Geoffrey says that even after a visual inspection has identified a potential meteorite, less than 1% are confirmed by a laboratory.

Of your two stones, the one that isn't attracted to a magnet doesn't seem to be a meteorite. Geoffrey says that nearly all meteorites are asteroidal and contain significant amounts of iron and nickel, so are attracted to magnets. Secondly, the density: most meteorites are significantly denser than Earth rocks, owing to the iron content and the lack of air bubbles. Thirdly larger meteorites often have regmaglypts and stony meteorites always will have a fusion crust, though this may erode away with time. If the crust has eroded the meteorite may appear rusted. And lastly, meteorites contain flakes of iron and often contain round colourful chondrules. ([source](https://aerolite.org/about/suspected-meteorite-education/))

I don't see any regmaglypts on your sample, and there is little sign of a crust. You should grind off an edge to see if a fusion crust, metallic flakes or chondrules are present. Washington university has some information about [identifying meteorites](https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/identification/).

If the stone does show these features, then you will need to get it tested (in Azerbaijan or elsewhere) to confirm your suspicions. A meteorite can *only* be proven in a lab. Costs are around 100-200 dollars. Though the first step is to send them photographs for a preliminary visual judgement. (of course, that is a paid service too). I am hesitant to actually recommend this as the chance of the stone being a meteorite is so low that the expected return on your investment is surely negative.

My *best guess* is that the first stone is a piece of magnetite, ie a "Lodestone", and the second is flint.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: I'm guessing "remaglphs" and "remaglyphs" are both mis-spellings of "[remaglpyt](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regmaglypt)"? It would be useful to link to a definition of both that and "chondrule", since both are pretty niche words.  
> **username_7**: "remaglpyt" is *also* a misspelling of "regmaglypt" :) (Not trying to be mean, that word seems to defy correct typing.)  
> **username_5**: I think I have it right now.  If you spot spelling mistakes, please use the "edit" button to correct them.  
> **username_4**: "Meteorites are rare, far rarer than gold, **even rarer than diamonds**" from what authoritative source are you supporting this off-hand assertion? If I walk around a random open desert, I am always more likely to find diamonds laying around on the surface than I am meteors? If I collect dust accumulating on a large flat roof for a year, there will be more microdiamonds than micrometeorites? Did you just make this up or is it a supportable fact? If so, could you add a supporting link so we know it's true?  
> **username_4**: I'm not finding the expression "nearly all" anywhere in your Geoffrey Notkin link. Can you add a block quote to show what the author actually DID say about this, so we can understand how "nearly all" is a valid paraphrase? Perhaps consider adding a proper scientific link which will contain an actual percentage? If you really meant to say "most" then discounting one of the samples merely because it's not substantially magnetic seems unscientific.  
> **username_4**: There are plenty of nonmagnetic meteorites! They are just *hard to find* by the folks with metal detectors, or those dragging magnets over the ground trying to collect meteorites.  
> **username_4**: and "asteroidal" ≠ magnetic, cf: [tiny diamonds in meteorite "signature of a long-lost planet": why come to Earth in 2008?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/25988/7982)  
> **username_5**: @username_4 The assertions here are sourced in the links included in the answer.  Those parts that are my opinion are marked as such namely "I don't see regmaglypts" and "My best guess is..." --- actually the line "they can be found anywhere" is not sourced, and while I think it is true, you are much more likely to find meteorites places in which there isn't any soil, such as Antarctica or North Africa.  
> **username_5**: While there are non magnetic meteorites, there are an *awful* lot more non-magnetic earth stones.  if a stone doesn't have a fusion crust, isn't magnetic, (such as stone 2) what reason is there to suppose it is a meteorite? If it is magnetic (stone 1) then does it contain native iron? If it doesn't (and is, for example magnetite) what reason is there to suppose it is a meteorite?  
> **username_5**: Re diamonds:  yes, diamonds are not that rare...  that is a bit of rhetoric  Many people have a diamond at home, and most towns have shops selling them. This is rhetoric, it makes the point that meteorites are rare, and rarer than something many people assume is a particularly rare stone, even if diamond is not exceptionally uncommon.  Emerald is rarer than diamond.  
> **username_4**: let's see where this one goes... [What fraction of meteorites found on Earth are for practical purposes non-magnetic?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/50330/7982)  
> **username_5**: That's not the point.  The point is what evidence is there that these stones are meteorites?  
> **username_4**: I try to avoid using "the point" because implies there can be only one point and it belongs to the person saying "the point". One of my points is that I am currently unconvinced that "Meteorites are... even rarer than diamonds" on Earth's surface. Certainly for 1 kg and above meteorites will win by a landslide! And at the low end, say 1 mg and below, I still think there's more meteoric particles than diamonds on Earth's surface. I think this factoid is fiction; can you support it by *directly quoting from an authoritative source?*  
> **username_4**: rarer still; [meteorites with diamonds inside](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/16/world/space-diamond-lonsdaleite-scn/index.html)!  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2022-08-30. Score: 5

The question of ‘meteorite’ versus ‘meteowrong’ is common, because people have incentive, and fertile imaginations. As you can guess, most bystanders are finding meteowrongs.

You had enough background and foresight to check using a magnet- progress, but not conclusive. Some earthly minerals are magnetic, while some meteorites (most achondrites, including the HEDs- not that rare) are nonmagnetic.

Some meteorites show fusion crust, and possibly regmaglypts, some don’t. Virtually all recovered meteorites have experienced some breakup and/or erosion during entry, and have fresher surfaces. This includes the rear surface of a meteor that by chance had a stable shape and didn’t tumble, and the interiors of weak meteorites. And let’s not forget chipping upon ground impact, let alone weathering on terrestrial exposure.

If one of your samples shows a fresh surface due to fracture/chipping, petrology may be taken as one kind of evidence. Most (but not all) meteorites are breccias, possibly gabbros- they’ve been formed by unifying pebbles, dust, possibly cobbles on a large parent body. This may be visible as a grain texture… or not. You may need a magnifier for fine breccias, and there are meteorites that are monolithic (irons, rare examples of chondrites, and again, some of the HEDs). The oddest grains are chondrules- sub-millimeter to ~mm spheres, spheroids, plus fragments and composites. These have few terrestrial equivalents. Unfortunately a fair number of meteorites never had/have chondrules.

Density is a reasonable test… except it, too, is not conclusive either way, and has testing issues. It’s easy enough to weigh a sample, but not to state the volume of an oblong/composite/whatever. Meteoriticists use, instead of water displacement (might affect some minerals) a ‘tank’ of fine plastic beads. The before-after difference gives volume, and it’s straightforward- though possibly annoying- to clear all beads afterwards. And who knows, there might be some stereophotometry now that can give some volume number if the object is a suitable shape. In any case, most meteorites are significantly denser (~3.2 g/cc) than most Earth rock… except the meteorites that aren’t.

Ultimately, you’ll need a chemical assay to identify the meteorite class, and thus positively ID the sample as a meteorite. Most meteorites have ‘chondritic’ composition- no loss of siderophiles to a core, very low loss of lithophiles to a crust, low loss of chalcophiles, and more atmophiles than Earth rock. …Except irons, which were the core, HEDs/Martian/Lunar meteorites which were the crust, and miscellaneous other achondrites. A decent chem analysis would still determine irons, ureilites, aubrites, etc. There’s a chance a detailed analysis would be necessary, but the initial results would likely point that out, rather than reject the stone.

Good luck with your two examples, but be prepared for disappointment. Even working meteoriticists can’t tell in the field, and await lab results for a positive ID.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: potentially of interest: [What fraction of meteorites found on Earth are for practical purposes non-magnetic?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/50330/7982)  

---

