Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?

[JNev]

Thanks!  Was curious and figured you'd seen a few go on Ebay, etc.

"Go for..." - LOL!!!  Heck, I just might!!!  ;)

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Brandis 3596
Navy 4510
No box
7.5 inch radius

OK.  In the table.

[Jeff Scott]

Any idea who put that together?  Would be great to collaborate with them.

Andrew, did you read this part of the site? It may temper your enthusiasm:

It's all very impressive in a way, but I think Tighar has been merely chasing a ghost.  I'm afraid that believing that the Nikumaroro Hypothesis is true is just wishful thinking...

I also have a suspicion about who the author is, and if I'm correct, he's part of that "WIX brain trust" you recently commented upon.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Andrew, did you read this part of the site?

The internet is a really cool place.

It is possible to provide links from one part of it to another.

So, for example, this is a link to the "part of the site" to which you wish to direct your readers' attention.

And here is a link to a post that explains how to insert links into posts.

It may temper your enthusiasm:

It's all very impressive in a way, but I think Tighar has been merely chasing a ghost.  I'm afraid that believing that the Nikumaroro Hypothesis is true is just wishful thinking...

   
• Why is the site anonymous?  Is the author--or are the authors--afraid of having his or her or their work given a "fair and balanced" evaluation?
• TIGHAR has made mistakes.  The group most responsible for identifying and correcting TIGHAR's mistakes is TIGHAR.  TIGHAR thought that the navigator's bookcase had to have come from NR16020; it was TIGHAR's research that proved TIGHAR's hypothesis false.
• The page to which you refer offers no research of its own.  It merely quotes TIGHAR's retraction of TIGHAR's previous interpretation of the available evidence.  Isn't correction of mistakes something praiseworthy?
• Someone died on Gardner Island.  TIGHAR's errors in photo interpretation of trails, footpaths, and "white feature" do not erase the evidence that the British collected on Niku.  Showing that one line of thinking does not support the Niku hypothesis is not the same as showing that there are no good reasons for continuing to investigate Niku.

[Andrew M McKenna]

Sure, I read that.  Having doubts about the TIGHAR hypothesis is OK with me.  Makes for a healthy dialog as long as both sides remain open minded about what is being discussed.

What is different is that this Blogger is actually doing some thoughtful research, not just casting doubt as in "could be an error.  Don't really know".  Sure, "could be" is something that can be applied to anything.  "Could be" that the Electra landed at Rabaul, and AE transferred to a flying saucer that took her near Howland.  Meanwhile the Electra flew itself to East New Britain and crashed in the hills where David Billings is convinced it resides.... "Could be, don't really know"  - can't prove it didn't happen.  Not very productive.

I'm not sure Mr. Blogger is entirely correct in his conclusions, but at least he's working on it unlike a lot of critics, and he spurred me to think differently about the sextant box issue, and in so doing I've noted a few things that might actually be productive lines of research to consider going forward that could link 3500/1542 with Noonan.  Too early to tell, but that is how science works.  Seemingly useless things sometimes turn out to be catalysts for moving forward.

I'm willing to collaborate with people who are trying to analyze data they've collected.

Andrew

[JNev]

Andrew, Marty,

Yes, self-correction is admirable and yes we should admire and be willing to work with those who work at real analysis.  It is actually the great hope of many critics that TIGHAR would embrace those things even more aggressively, so I applaud your having made those points as a positive thing.

[Gary Vance]

I haven't heard back yet from the seller about numbers/identification marks, but this sextant is for sale on Craigslist up here in Seattle.  Can anyone tell by the pictures if it's of interest for our sextant numbering research?

I will post the link as well, but since it's a Craigslist ad it might expire.    http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/boa/5039043715.html

"This sextant comes in the original wooden box with brass hardware. It looks virtually un issued with no damage and looks like a more advanced model that uses the longer style scope. The case measures approximately 5 inches tall, x 11 inches across There are 5 different moveable filters that are built on the main body and it still has the original brass adjustment knob."

[Ric Gillespie]

That certainly appears to be a Brandis & Sons Navy Surveying Sextant. 
The "Maker's Number" will be etched in small numbers on the arc toward the end. 
The "Naval Observatory Number", if it has one, will be etched in large numbers on the arc.
The "Maker's Number" will be stenciled on the inside edge of the box.
The "Naval Observatory Number", if it has one, will be stamped not the inside edge of the box.

In many cases, the numbers on the sextant and the numbers on the box do not agree.  Sextants often got swapped around.

[JNev]

According to my 'deep throat' sextant source, the rig has the following information on it –

"The wood box has a ink stamp as follows:

Brandis & Sons Inc

764-753 Lexington Avenue

Brooklyn, New York

Etched into the Sextant it reads

U.S. Navy 1446

There are no other markings."

Said to want $445 for it.

[Ric Gillespie]

There are no other markings."

I'll betcha anything there's a Maker's Number on the arc. It's down toward the end, really tiny, much smaller than the Navy number.

[Andrew M McKenna]

Number on the arc should look like the attached

you can see in the photos that there is a number near the right hinge as seen with the box open. It should look like the second photo attached



amck

[JNev]

Might want to follow-up with the seller on that. 

[Andrew M McKenna]

OK, so I checked with this seller and he reports the following:

<<<<<<<<<<<

Hi:

Below is what is either on the box or sextant:

The wood box has a ink stamp as follows:

Brandis & Sons Inc
764-753 Lexington Avenue
Brooklyn, New York

It has a ink stamp above the right hinge that reads # 4131

Etched into the Sextant it reads

U.S. Navy 1446

There are no other markings.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The inked number on the box should be the Brandis number of the sextant originally in that box, but at this point we don't know what the Brandis number on the current instrument is.  I've asked him to double check the left end of the arc and sent him a photo so he knows what to look for.

So far we have Box only for Brandis 4131, and sextant with USN 1446.


Andrew

[Gary Vance]

FYI I received the same reply from the seller:

The wood box has a ink stamp as follows:

Brandis & Sons Inc
764-753 Lexington Avenue
Brooklyn, New York

Etched into the Sextant reads

U.S. Navy 1446

[Andrew M McKenna]

The photo help him locate the Brandis number on the instrument:

<<<<<<<<<
Thanks Andrew – that helped.

The serial number is 3360
>>>>>>>>>>>

So if I got this straight, we have

Brandis 3360
USN 1446

With box for Brandis 4131
Apparently no USN number on the box.

Andrew