Quote:

---

Patrick Moore seems to take the most abuse for this (C #'s), but I would like to point out that O'Meara's "Hidden Treasure's" book uses HT #'s and Levy's book uses L #'s.

I thoroughly understand the argument of proper catalog numbers, but when one is working on the Astronomical League's Caldwell observers award, it is easier to communicate with another individual who is also working on that list or has previously completed that list using C #'s. I for one, don't immediately recognise NGC #'s or C #'s without looking them up.

---

I didn't find it easier at all when I did the Messier Objects more than 30 years ago, as all required reference to standard star charts and some of them required the use of a larger numerical designation on an atlas to locate them. Indeed, one early atlas (the early editions of Norton's atlas), had the original Herschel numbers instead of the more standard NGC/IC designators, and that actually made it harder to find the location of the target. Most print atlases use the Messier, NGC, IC, and perhaps one or two other lables which are from accepted scientific catalogs, so there is little need to introduce another one. Off the top of my head, I still can only identify maybe half of the Messier objects just by their M-numbers, so the argument about being easier just doesn't hold water. With the Herschel 400 or the Herschel II objects, the NGC numbers are used, and many of these numbers are quite commonly known among amateurs. I probably know at least a couple of dozen more prominent objects by their NGC numbers, but there are others who observe Deep-sky who know a lot more. Once a person becomes familiar with them, they are just as easy to communicate by their NGC designation as with some other non-standard one that just happens to contain fewer digits. Again, don't be surprised if, when you say, "I found Caldwell ###", someone else says, "Huh??". Clear skies to you.

--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info

Post Extras