Thanks for the reply Marty,
The evidence I have of confusion is that both Macpherson and Vaskess thought a sextant was found when there was not. I believe the confusion was caused by Gallagher describing two aspects of a sextant. A sextant he did not see since no sextant was found. Only part of an inverting eye piece was found, and he may not have even seen that since it was discarded before shipping the finds out.
Here are the two aspects of the sextant Gallagher describes, again one he did not see.
1. That “sextant being old fashioned”
2. That the sextant was “probably painted over with black enamel”
He says "sextant being old fashioned". He does not say he thinks or it probably was old fashioned, he says "Sextant being old fashioned". Maybe he thought the box was old fashioned because it had dove tailed joints? Those were described later by 58. McDonald Aug 11, 1941 and something Gallagher could actually see to describe.
Here is the evidence (From bones file, same link you gave):
Telegram 349 Oct 1, 1940 -“Near the skeleton was a box containing an old fashioned sextant”
Comment form Tighar : “ It erroneously reports that a sextant was found.”
McPherson to Vaskess: “The instrument itself moreover, if a good one, should have engraved on it”
Comment: from Tighar: “He also thinks that there is a sextant”
Vaskess to Gallagher: “ bones and other finds, including box, sextant and shoe, should be forwarded to Suva”
Comment form Tighar: “Vaskess still thinks there is a sextant”
Gallagher clarifies “Confidential. Your telegram No. 2, no sextant was found. Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of an inverting eyepiece
Marty, The stenciled information is clear but you may want to add dovetailed joints to the description of the box.
Also, You may want to move my comments since I do not want to cause confusion on what to look for, I just don't know where to move it.
Thanks,