Is It Dc1976? Or Something Else?

[+cjf]

I was hunting down benchmarks this weekend and came across this: DC1976.

 

It wasn't until I got back and started logging finds that I realized that what I found (3 disks, all including the word "GAR") was far different than the one disk mentioned in the datasheet (which was a "GAR" benchmark). But the coordinates and location description was right on target.

 

I haven't found any other datasheet that fits what I found.

 

Take and look at the note and photos I posted. What did I find? Any ideas?

 

Thanks,

 

cjf

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

cjf, without knowing the coordinates we can't be sure, but it appears as though you may have found DC1965.

 

It was set in the same year, by the same people, and it is a triangulation station.

 

John

 

edit to add - Maybe GAR was a Triangulation station and the box score got lost in California.

Edited May 24, 2006 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

[mloser]

DC1965 GARNET USE is almost 3 miles away. If your coords were close--as in 10 feet or so--I think you have found GAR USE 1940, despite the existence of undocumented reference marks. The stamping on the disk is very close to what is stated. The disk says GAR 1940 and it is a USE disk.

[+Klemmer]

Looks like a good find to me! I love the "M" on the RM1 disc. Looks like the surveyor didn't have an "M" metal stamp, or a "1" metal stamp. The "M" looks like it was made using an "I" stamp, and the "1" as well (less of a problem for the "1"). I guess he liked the result so little he just didn't bother with an "M" on RM2. I give the surveyor "good marks" for improvising (pun intended!). Maybe the stamping is one reason the two RM's are not documented in the Datasheet. Nice find!

[+cjf]

I don't think it's DC1965, Garnet. I considered that but the disks I found clearly say "GAR." Also, my coordinates were almost dead on for GAR: N 32 58.654 W 116 31.176 (I have a fuzzy fuzzy picture of the benchmark and my GPSr).

 

I like Klemmer & TeddyBearMama's suggestion of why the disks are so poorly marked. I'd never seen disks like that. I've seen them scraped up, worn up, and in otherwise bad condition, but nothing ever like this!

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

In the field, sometimes you just hve to improvise. I think the 1 must get worn out the quickest. Most of the marks in the 116 line had the arrow for ones.

 

 

Since the coordinates are adjusted and your coordinates match, you must have found GAR USE 1940. Who knows what happened on the paperwork trail.

 

John

[68-eldo]

It would be interesting to see if GARNET USE 1940 has reference marks. While listed in the description it seems the one finder did not look for them. If there are no reference marks there then it would indicate the descriptions got mixed up.