Posted By paul plutae on 6/16/2010 at 8:56 PM
I did a small survey the other day:
Sidebar...how's this for being slow. 8 hours work in 2+ months.
Anyway, Razmik heads down the street looking for existing monuments as a check on our position. He finds one that checks 0.02' in 200', meas. 199.98'
He's walking back and tells me that it's a real old one, old is very good, and I ask him what the tag number is, so he says LS T289. I tell him he better take a better look at that tag, so he goes back and really puts an eye on it this time and says "Yep, it's LS T289"
I tell Raz that just does not compute, so we both go back and take a look at it...Sure enough, I see it as Raz see's it..LS T289.
Here is a picture of the monument as one would see it from about a height of 2 feet. The punched iron spike is 1/4" in dia and the letters are 1/16" in height.
LS T289 from 2 feet above
The next day I go back to that monument with a magnyfing glass and a camera. My eyes are not the best in the west anymore so my plan was to take a snapshot and enhance it in the computer..
This is what showed up after I processed the image.
The spur or serif of the number 1, which was stamped upside down just could not be made out with these old eyes. If the stamped numbers are 1/16" at full height, I would take a guess that the spur of the 1 is maybe 0.001' in length. Thats a hard one to see.
I also noticed that the '8' was stamped upside down, which is no big deal cause it reads as an 8 either way. My question now is, is that last number a 6 or a 9??
I am reporting it as LS 1289, R.D. Klise.
In checking our LS Board website prior to taking the photos I did see that there were two surveyors
that were assigned the number 184.
LS 184a Lou G. Hare
LS 184b Arthur S. Hobby
But that "T" sure had me puzzled until I took the pictures.
PS Someone may ask if it could be LS 6821. No, that is too old of a monument for that young of an LS number.
June 17, 2010