New faint 1/4 stone

bury that thing and pick one of the rebars as your corner.... long live harmony.... 😉

[sarcasm off]

That would be much easier! And the one at the prorate not the one at the old fence corner 10 feet west of the prorate;-)

Is this it?

Is this it?

I don't see it in the second photo.

Is this it?

I see a pointy four

Is this it?

Where man, where...?

My 8 year old and I have poured over the photos...

...now he is in bed. I may not be able to sleep until I see it.

(unless I have one more :beer: that is)

😉

see it now?

Big as Stutgaart.

Stuttgart?

What does "Big as Stutgaart" mean?

Really, I still do not see it, do I need to turn in my membership card?

see it now?

Now I feel like I am just making sh*t up.

I DO think I see the vertical scribe.

But the horizontal & the diagonal, I still really don't see...?

see it now?

I see an open 4. The slant line goes a little more vertical than the drawn closed 4, at least in my interpretation of the photo.

Like this?

Like this?

more like this-

Like this?

Dunno. Is this the expected size of numeral for those who worked in the area? Why can't anybody see any trace of the 1 or the slash?

There are quite a few lines in various places on the stone that suggest the "4" might be our preconceived idea superimposed on random cracks and scratches, as demonstrated by people thinking they found it in a different place.

I could as easily convince myself I saw
HA (with the A under the shadow)
HA
if I was told it was there.

I'm seeing something more like this...

JB helps make my point. If several people see it in different places, why would we think it's there at all? It's a Rorschach test.

Like this?

> Dunno. Is this the expected size of numeral for those who worked in the area? Why can't anybody see any trace of the 1 or the slash?
>
> There are quite a few lines in various places on the stone that suggest the "4" might be our preconceived idea superimposed on random cracks and scratches, as demonstrated by people thinking they found it in a different place.

This is why I think the best practice when a mark on a stone doesn't photograph clearly is to highlight it with white chalk so that there is no question about what the photo shows. That way, if you ever have to produce the photo for someone else to examine, there isn't any question about what it purports to show. Sure, that will depend upon your ability to recognize the mark in the field, but the photo won't be readily subject to alternate interpretations, including the one that it shows no mark at all.

see it now?

Rankin, it is difficult to see in the photo. This is the second 1/4 in the section that had faint marks. Both stones are granite. The 1/4 a mile north of this one is a sandstone that has a very visible but small 1/4. This 4 is about the size of my thumb above the knuckle. These marks are common in this area-small and faint.

Like this?

I agree, Kent.

I take a photo before applying color, too. I like yellow keel.

John is "seeing" the same thing that I was "seeing."

Looks like a weathered HARD fine grained Quartzite in the photo, in which case the markings would probably be shallow, BUT "should" stand out pretty well.

I dunno, taking "good" photos of stones is often a real PITA. We have taken to rotating the stone around for different sun/shade angles, and taking multiple picture, and even then, some simply need some chalk as Kent indicated below.

Here are the two ¼ Corner Stones (80 feet apart) that we found last week:

A.J. Stewart 1896 (official GLO Survey), a Sandstone broken through the center of the 4:

Unknown Surveyor (probably County Surveyor), a Quartzite with an '+' on top.

The Stewart Stone could use a a better photo, but that will come next Spring when the ground isn't frozen SOLID.

Loyal