Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 33   Go Down

Author Topic: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?  (Read 551228 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #300 on: May 04, 2015, 06:44:20 AM »

Brandis 3249 with the number printed on the frame under the Brandis name
Navy 836

Added to the table.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #301 on: May 04, 2015, 09:48:03 AM »

OK, so here is something interesting I've noticed.  There are several different frames to Brandis Sextants - The frame such as the one seen in the latest eBay sextant, a larger and "lighter" framed unit, and a "heavier" framed version.  See photos below.

Brandis 3249 / USNO 836 with what appears to be an older generation frame
Brandis 3987 / USNO 1584 with the lighter weight frame
Brandis 4297 / USNO 1880 with the heavier frame

We know from the "Ghost of Gardner" site previously linked 

http://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-do-numbers-3500-and-1542-tell-us.html

That Brandis was awarded a contract with the Navy in or around October 1917 to produce 1000 sextants, and that they eventually produced 2400 sextants in the two year period between the contract and sometime in 1919.

Apparently, the "lighter" frame has an armature radius of 7.5 inches, while the heavier frame is a 6 inch radius, and this is mentioned in the 1920 advertisement found here.
http://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-do-numbers-3500-and-1542-tell-us.html

I've tried to look at the images of the sextants we have available, and it appears to me that all the Brandis sextants prior to Brandis 3987 are of the 7.5 inch lighter frame, and all the Brandis sextants after 4297 are the 6 inch radius heavier frame.  Sometime during that run of 310 instruments between those two numbers, Brandis shifted production from primarily the 7.5 inch instruments to the 6 inch instruments.

My guess is that the Navy contract was for 6 inch radius instruments, and that is the model that got mass produced during the war with 100% of the production going to the Navy.  I don't think the Navy would order up two different types instruments.

By this reasoning the Nikumaroro Sextant - Brandis #3500 is most likely a 7.5 inch radius instrument, manufactured before the Navy Contract got awarded in October of 1917.  This is contrary to the conclusion of the author of the Ghost of Gardner Island blog (who remains nameless at this point) but obviously there is a lot of room for variation and I haven't been able to look at images of all sextants post #4297.  I can imagine that the Navy was buying all of Brandis' inventory before awarding the contract to make the additional 1000, and #3500 went into the Navy inventory probably during 1916 or 1917 just prior to those units made under the contract.

Any way to figure out if the Navy contract was for 6 inch radius instruments vs 7.5 inch instruments? 

Andrew

PS - Note to Myself, Marty, and anyone else interested.  We need to capture screenshots of these instruments and their numbers while the images are available on the web, particularly those that pop up on eBay.  Many of the images of units we've linked to in the Ameliapedia matrix are either not functional, or the images have been removed, so there is no way to now go back and verify either the numbers, the frame types, or anything else.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2015, 09:50:08 AM by Andrew M McKenna »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #302 on: May 04, 2015, 12:32:02 PM »

We need to capture screenshots of these instruments and their numbers while the images are available on the web, particularly those that pop up on eBay.  Many of the images of units we've linked to in the Ameliapedia matrix are either not functional, or the images have been removed, so there is no way to now go back and verify either the numbers, the frame types, or anything else.

Message rec'd.

It will have to be a "from now on" policy for me.  I haven't been snagging images in any systematic fashion whatsoever--one here, one there, once in a while.

Of course, I don't think that any of the information we have collected or ever could collect along these lines would settle the question of ownership of 3500/1542.  We need a whole different kind of documentation from a table of numbers in order to have some confidence that it was or wasn't Fred's instrument.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #303 on: May 04, 2015, 01:26:06 PM »

Understood. We don't know what we don't know, and who knows what we'll want to find out later, so collecting the info and imagery is probably worth doing from now on.

Agreed, this will probably not solve whether or not 3500 / 1542 is connected to Noonan.

amck
« Last Edit: May 04, 2015, 01:33:41 PM by Andrew M McKenna »
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #304 on: May 04, 2015, 07:04:55 PM »

Newly added Brandis on eBay this am

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-BRANDIS-SONS-NAUTICAL-SEXTANT-Navy-836-/141656162631?

Would appear to be
Brandis 3249 with the number printed on the frame under the Brandis name
Navy 836

No numbers on the box are visible.

The instrument frame is different than many others we've looked at, and I suspect that it is older.  The Brandis and the Navy numbers are pretty early in the matrix.

Andrew

Seller confirms that the number 3249 is on both the outside and inside of the box.

see attached

Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #305 on: May 05, 2015, 01:47:02 AM »

Seller confirms that the number 3249 is on both the outside and inside of the box.

The pencil inside the box is quite clear.

The ink (?) on the outside is not as clear.  I see "324" without difficulty, but the final character doesn't look like any "9" of my acquaintance.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #306 on: May 05, 2015, 09:10:33 AM »

I think the 9 is there as I see it.  Looks a bit like an S, but keep looking at it and the 9 will pop out if you close in the top of the S.

3249 on the unit, 3249 written inside the box, 324? on the outside of the box, and the seller indicating that it is 3249 on both the inside and outside of the box.

I don't think it takes the WIX braintrust or forensic photo analysis to figure this one out.

Andrew
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #307 on: May 05, 2015, 10:21:35 AM »

I think the 9 is there as I see it.  Looks a bit like an S, but keep looking at it and the 9 will pop out if you close in the top of the S.

Yes, I see it now.

There is a deep scratch in the wood that I was seeing as part of the "9." 
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #308 on: May 05, 2015, 10:36:24 AM »

I think the 9 is there as I see it.  Looks a bit like an S, but keep looking at it and the 9 will pop out if you close in the top of the S.

3249 on the unit, 3249 written inside the box, 324? on the outside of the box, and the seller indicating that it is 3249 on both the inside and outside of the box.

I don't think it takes the WIX braintrust or forensic photo analysis to figure this one out.

Andrew

Careful now, Andrew... you probably need to be more qualified in 'forensic photo analysis' to say such a thing...

One might ask one's self as well, 'does it matter if it is a 9 or not?'  Realizing you two are putting quite a puzzle together, for sure, but...   :D  Seriously, it appears that enough of a pattern of randomness is evolving to well affirm what was said above - that this isn't likely to establish much true assurance of the Gardner-found box fitting the pattern, much less of giving any real certainty to Fred's ownership... but maybe I'm missing something.

Enjoy.

What ever happened to the guy that was actually going to go through old boxes of records from the observatory?  Wasn't there someone here a few years ago who had access / knew of old storage, or is my memory playing tricks?  Seems like the express route (in relative terms) would be finding out who the reported box was assigned to via a primary record, surely enough. 

Was that effort exhausted, not materialize, or given up on?  Thought I remembered some good soul agreeing to got dueling with dustmites to make it happen.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: May 05, 2015, 10:49:17 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #309 on: May 05, 2015, 10:59:23 AM »

What ever happened to the guy that was actually going to go through old boxes of records from the observatory?

I don't know.

He never said good-bye.

He did not post in the relevant thread: "Where are the Naval Observatory records of sextant numbers?"
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #310 on: May 05, 2015, 10:49:20 PM »

I think the 9 is there as I see it.  Looks a bit like an S, but keep looking at it and the 9 will pop out if you close in the top of the S.

3249 on the unit, 3249 written inside the box, 324? on the outside of the box, and the seller indicating that it is 3249 on both the inside and outside of the box.

I don't think it takes the WIX braintrust or forensic photo analysis to figure this one out.

Andrew

Careful now, Andrew... you probably need to be more qualified in 'forensic photo analysis' to say such a thing...

Honestly Jeff, are you really challenging that the numbers are 3249?  Do you really believe it is not a 9 given that the numbers on the box match the numbers on the instrument itself, verified by the seller of the unit?  Or are you simply challenging anything that anyone on the Forum puts forth these days?

[/quote]
One might ask one's self as well, 'does it matter if it is a 9 or not?'  Realizing you two are putting quite a puzzle together, for sure, but...   :D  Seriously, it appears that enough of a pattern of randomness is evolving to well affirm what was said above - that this isn't likely to establish much true assurance of the Gardner-found box fitting the pattern, much less of giving any real certainty to Fred's ownership... but maybe I'm missing something.
[/quote]

Whether or not the number is a 9 won't solve the AE mystery.  That is not the point.  What it is about is basic research to understand the overall context of what was reported by Gallagher in 1940.  When TIGHAR first got that report (a result of other basic research), we had no idea what the numbering system on the sextant box was all about, what did the two numbers have to do with each other, and whether or not it made any sense in the context of the castaway, AE, and TIGHAR's hypothesis.  At first they seemed insignificant and certainly obscure.

Only through a bunch of persistent work over a long period of time looking for and documenting sextant numbers and the patterns they reveal, did the big picture emerge that the numbers on the sextant found with a castaway on Gardner Island meant that the sextant was most likely a US made, USN surplus Brandis sextant - exactly the kind that Noonan apparently used as a backup unit on the Pan Am Clippers.  This is not only indicated by TIGHARs work, but also the work of whoever is blogging on http://gardnerghost.blogspot.com who has made a pretty convincing chronology that shows the likelihood that 3500 / 1542 was a Brandis sextant issued to the USN, and even narrowed down the date of manufacture to 1917.  Through my own analysis of the frame styles, it looks like Brandis 3500 was a 7.5 inch radius instrument vs a 6 inch radius instrument. 

This dreary research on sextant numbers over many years is pretty boring, I agree, but it has pretty convincingly revealed that the Gardner Isle sextant box contained a USN surplus 7.5 inch radius Brandis sextant manufactured in 1917, something we didn't know when we started collecting information about sextants.  Pretty amazingly precise information, don't you think?  Who would have guessed we'd know so much about that sextant when we started collecting numbers.

The overall context is that a sextant box (and presumably sextant) with a particular number set was found with a known castaway from a particular era in a particular remote area of the world where at least two persons are known to be have gone missing, one of whom was known to use a Brandis Sextant as part of his navigational tools.  These are incontestable facts.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  Can you argue alternate sources?  Sure.  However, in the overall context of AE and FN, it makes sense that a Brandis sextant might be fond there.  If it were a Russian sextant, it would not fit with the rest of the context.  But it is not a Russian sextant, it is a US made, USN surplus Brandis sextant found on a British colonial island where it doesn't belong.  Odd, don't you think?  Isn't that worth trying to figure out?

We don't know what information might collected now might be important in the future.  Maybe it won't be important - lord knows we've collected a lot of information that doesn't seem to be related - but that should not stop us from collecting the information.  The more info we collect, the more likely we'll finally figure out if there was a sextant with that number combination, whether it was related to Noonan, and where the USNO archives are, and what they hold.  Just because you and others think it frivolous to continue doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to do this and other basic research.  Who knows what we might find.  At least we're trying to figure it out.

With all due respect, as they say.

Andrew
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #311 on: May 06, 2015, 12:24:34 AM »

Andrew, really... You're losing your sense of humor when your posts exceed mine in length!  ::)

Not to mention cool...

Calm down, big daddy - I'm not gonna hotfoot your swimmin' fins!

I thought it was OK to challenge here, point in fact, but no - I'm not challenging anything, I think it's moot. 

But I also see room for doubt - and that the hand marked number 9 could be an error.  Don't really know.

I admire yours and Marty's efforts on this, but it dawns on me that all the bracketing done to date only drives us more toward the realization that we can never rationalize "3500/1542" into a constructive pigeon hole that way.  That and we seem to have gained more than enough evidence to now understand the system (more random than systematic) and the context of Gallagher's find.

Now one wonders whether that historic box was truly numbered "3500/1542" or whether there was ambiguity.  Alas, no pictures...  ;)

You took a poke at the 'trust' - cool, so don't let your own skin get too thin.  After the public whackings that have happened here over photogrammetry amateurs and the like, seems like that's fair enough game too - especially when yes, I now think it's irrelevant whether that's a nine or an s in terms of finding Earhart.   

But carry on guys, nothing like being busy!  ;D

But hey, that's just me.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #312 on: May 06, 2015, 08:18:37 AM »

For those who are interested, another Brandis on eBay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-U-S-Navy-4510-Brandis-Sons-Nautical-Sextant-AS-IS-/261877816552?fromMakeTrack=true

Brandis 3596
Navy 4510
No box
7.5 inch radius

Andrew
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #313 on: May 06, 2015, 08:41:19 AM »

For those who are interested, another Brandis on eBay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-U-S-Navy-4510-Brandis-Sons-Nautical-Sextant-AS-IS-/261877816552?fromMakeTrack=true

Brandis 3596
Navy 4510
No box
7.5 inch radius

Andrew

What does one like this / in this condition typically go for at final bid, Andrew, do you know?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?
« Reply #314 on: May 06, 2015, 11:00:48 AM »

Jeff

Hard to say.  Without a box or any of the eyepieces, it isn't really a functional instrument and that certainly degrades the value. 

As a curio, I don't think it will bring more than $100.  Units with matching boxes, telescopes, tools, and filters etc have gone for between $200 and $350.

Go for #3249 with the box.  They you'll be able tell us definitively whether you think the 9 is a 9.  :-)

Andrew
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 33   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP