Conflicting/overlapping descriptions - One benchmark?

[+TeamMoehrke]

Here's a mystery... Look at PID JS1916 (which I've logged) and PID JS4388. While the coordinates are slightly different, the descriptions are almost identical.

 

Following either description will lead you to the same place. Allowing for differences in language and topology resulting from a 7-year time difference, a different surveyor and the addition and subtraction of fences, these must be the same benchmark. Further allowing for a 40-year plus time difference between the last description and today, they appear to describe the same place.

 

JS4388 was last described and shows no history beyond 1953, while JS1916 was first described in 1960 and has history up to 1987. The concrete monument I found is clearly incised 1906, a date that shows up in neither text. A combination of the descriptions matches the pier, one mentions it as Pier 6 in the recovery text, the other in the designation text. JS4366 mentions the disk being stamped 6, yet the disk I photographed has no such markings; JS1916 mentions no stamping at all.

 

Could they be anything other than the same benchmark? The descriptions match quite closely. Could there be two concrete markers stamped No. 6? I didn't see one, but then i wasn't looking for one. Could JS1916 be a redescription of JS4388? I don't know. Should I log both? I await your collective wisdom.

[+rogbarn]

I think they are the same one, for many of the same reasons you give. Also, they both indicate that they were monumented by the USGS although JS1916 does not give a date. Another interesting tidbit is the first recovery note of 1963 for JS1919 which indicates that they are the same. My guess is that when the recovery note was sent in in 1960, the original file could not be found so they created a new one. If you get good agreement on this, it would be interesting to send it into the NGS and see if they correct it.