Where are the sextant box, the shoe parts, and the corks?

[Chris Johnson]

Tim,

begs the question "how common was it to paint a sextant"?

[Tim Collins]

I cannot speak from any specific knowledge or experience (though I have used a transit), however, I can imagine that "scientific" instruments were very commonly painted, or perhaps more accurately, enameled to protect from wear or to eliminate reflective glare in the case of optical instruments.

[Chris Johnson]

Hmm,

remember the old microscopes (pre electric lamp) at school being black enamel, not pre WW2 vintage.

[Andrew M McKenna]

If you look at a Brandis sextant, and many others, you will see that they were painted.  I've attached a bad photo of one here. 

The one I own is also black, and I think you can in fact see black in the box where the supports meet the sextant.  I'll have to get some better pictures when I get back to America after the 9th, but I'm pretty sure that simply looking at the box you could easily come to the conclusion that "sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel."

One thing that I find very interesting, and a nuance that many miss, is that Gallagher specifically describes the numbers on the box as "Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542-" - Note that one number is "stenciled", and the other is not.  He doesn't say how the other number is presented, but what is interesting is that in the Brandis boxes we've looked at, including the one in the attached photo, and the one I own, the Brandis number is indeed stenciled, but the USNO number has been stamped or impressed into the wood.  See this photo from the ameliapedia http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Numbers09.jpg.

The fact that this fits perfectly with how Brandis sextants of the USN were numbered, - one number stenciled, the other not, is very compelling evidence to me that the box Gallager was describing was in fact a former (?) USN Brandis sextant box.

All we have to do now is connect that Brandis number with AE / Fred Noonan.  Simple huh?  Well, he was known to carry an old fashioned sextant as his backup "preventer", and he was lost in the area....

Where are those archives?!?

Andrew

[C.W. Herndon]

Andrew, when I tried to open your reference document at the bottom of the page I got the following message, "you are not allowed to access this section". Also, I only get a "red X" where you reference a picture in the ameliapedia. ???

[C.W. Herndon]

OK, now, for some reason, the two have come up correctly. :)

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

[C.W. Herndon]

Marty, great picture! Thanks. :)

[Tim Collins]

...but I'm pretty sure that simply looking at the box you could easily come to the conclusion that "sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel."
...

And just how, exactly, would you come to that conclusion by simply looking the box?

[Andrew M McKenna]

OK, perhaps I should have left out the "sextant being old fashioned " part of the quote.  There may be diagnostic factors about the box that would allow one to ID it as old fashioned - number of lenses, tubes, type of construction, lock, etc - I don't know enough about sextants to really know.

But the spots where the sextant meets the box are definitely discolored black by the paint  / enamel on the instrument, so Gallager would certainly have seen those.

Keep in mind he had a sextant of his own (see the item #37 of the inventory of Gallagher's personal effects found here http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Gallagereffects2.html), and as an aviator he may have been versed in more modern instruments. 

It is not out of the realm that he would know an old fashioned sextant from a more modern one.

Andrew

[Tim Collins]

Fair enough.