NGC 7000

NGC 7000 = North American Nebula = LBN 373 = Sh 2-117
20 59.3 +44 31
Size 120x100

17.5": at 100x and OIII filter appears very bright, extremely large (fills 
several fields), amazingly high contrast around the "Gulf" of Mexico and "Baja" 
region and to a lesser extent along the W and E coasts.  Can trace around the 
entire border except for the "Canada" region which consists mostly of scattered 
star fields with weak nebulosity.  The open cluster N6997 is easily picked out 
in the NE section.

8": bright, very large, sharp border and details around the "Gulf" section, 
"Southwest border" and "Baja region".  Rich with faint stars.  Easy naked-eye in 
dark sky.

- by Steve Gottlieb

NGC 7000, the North America Nebula.  WH saw only the brightest portion of this
huge emission region, also the southern-most portion, ``Central America.''  JH
was uncertain if his father had in fact seen the same nebulosity as he did, as
WH's position is nearly a degree south of his own (I put the approximate 
center even further north than JH did).  The most detailed part of WH's 
description makes JH's question even more relevant:  ``... 7 or 8 arcmin long, 
6 arcmin broad ...''  It's no wonder that WH's number ended up in the NGC 
followed by a question mark.

There are a couple of minor mysteries about this nebula.  WH claims only one
observation of it in his published catalogue, as does JH in his.  Yet, in GC, 
JH has the total number of observations by himself and his father as ``3.''  
In addition, JH claims in his observation that the ``RA [is] that of V. 37 
from working list, not being settled by the observation.''  However, the RA he
quotes is nearly a minute of time larger than WH's published RA.  The RA that
JH adopts for GC is not quite a mean of the two values, but is closer to WH's
original.  I wonder if WH had another observation that somehow was skipped
when it came time for publication. - Dr. Harold G. Corwin, Jr.

As with all corrections to the NGC and IC Catalogues, there is a certain margin
for error, even though the evidence supporting the correction may be strong and
compelling. It is with this in mind that we ask the user to use this information
as 'Most Probable', but never to assume the correction is 'Absolute'.  All
published corrections are based on an exhaustive 'paper chase' of the historical
record back to the original discoverer's published notes/papers, and are
therefore based upon the historical accuracy (or inaccuracy) of those particular
notes/papers. In short, Caveat Emptor! - Robert E. Erdmann, Jr.