Recovered an original 1/4 Corner stone set by R. Collier in 1884. These kind of finds give me the fizz!
Nice one!!!!
Would you locate this in the center of the chisel square or...?
As set, the chiseled 1/4 mark would have been on the side of the stone. So, no. Nothing on that side would be the point.
The people who set that stone would laugh at discussion about what particular point on the stone might be "the point". They would consider the whole stone to be a pinpoint. The surveyor of today might select any point on the stone that pleases him - somewhere near plumb over the perceived center of mass, or perhaps at the highest point, whatever - and, one hopes, mark that point for the benefit of future surveyors.
In 1884 the notes will probably mention accessories; bearing trees, pits, mounds, pile of stones are the typical ones I see. So, if the stone was firmly set, properly marked, and all accessories are meeting the description and location in the notes you're good to go.
Depending on the situation I will either leave it in place and locate the top center of the stone, or I will take pictures, remove the stone, set a monument in the center of the hole and bury the stone alongside.
Usually, I see 1/4 monuments aligned with the wide part of the stone parallel to the section line and the 1/4 marked on the west face for a N-S line and the north face for an E-W line. But not always, sometimes the stone will be opposite. The top of the stone would be the portion "above" the 1/4. That stone looks like sandstone, and it's possible it was broken just below the 4 meaning there could be part of the original stone still in the ground. Regardless, it's a really nice find with very visible 1/4.
If it had been in position, yes I would say "center" for this instance. Some surveyors mentioned putting an X mark which they would call the true point. I think R. Collier was a little more relaxed on his measurements from what I've seen.
In my experience, working in the areas that I do, original ancient stones were set vertically, and we would typically locate the high point. I used to laugh when I saw the PLS that I was working under call an original stone off by hundredths. What is scary about that is that if I mentioned the person's name, most in the US would have heard it before or have copies of some of their publications.
Keep in mind the duty of the original versus retracing surveyor. Collier established the line. The owners (presumably) relied on it. My job is recover the lines and corners where established. Anything less than that transfers earned rights..
Please explain "earned rights".
My comment related to the measurements mentioned above you. For some reason all replies appear to be to the last comment.
When owners occupy based on original monuments and meet the conditions for patent they have earned ownership rights as monumented. I hear a lot of surveyors justify loose work 'because the GLO wasn't that close'. That attitude belies a fundamental ignorance of our duty. We don't get to move lines and corners because early GLO had crude tools. The rights are already earned and the lines and corners fixed. It is our job to recover them. In this day and age we should be able to do that with a high degree of precision and accuracy.
I don't see Smithsurveying saying loose early surveys justify crap these days, but his comment brought the issue to mind...
I should mention I meant relaxed with regard to the Manual, but from my research R. Collier was not instructed to measure to a specific location to bearing trees. It wasn't until the 1890 Manual of Instructions they were instructed to measure to a specific location.
I've found lots of bearing trees, I recently retraced a 1902 survey, If I tried to hold the position from the bearing trees all the firmly still set original monuments would shift a bit. Just saying.
And if missing ones are replaced using the trees, you can come up with a number of points clustered near the real corner location.
