NGC 1269

NGC 1269 = N1291 = E301-002 = MCG -07-07-008 = PGC 12209
03 17 18.2 -41 06 26

See observing notes for N1291.

Discovered by JH (h2518) on the same night as N1291!  Strangely, the objects are 
given identical declinations and almost identical descriptions!  Could he have 
reobserved the same object unknowingly?

In Mon. Not, Vol 62, p469, Innes comments "not visible in the 7-inch.  This is 
perhaps the same as NGC 1291, observed by h on the same night.  H gives for the 
latter exactly the same declination and description as for h2518."  Listed as 
nonexistent by Carlson and repeated in RNGC.

- by Steve Gottlieb

NGC 1269 = NGC 1291.  Though JH claims to have seen them on the same night (1 
November 1836), I think that he has some mistake in his records.  His data and
description for NGC 1269 are identical to those for NGC 1291 on that night 
with two exceptions.  First, the RAs differ by 2 minutes 34 seconds; and 
second, he adds a diameter to his description of N1291 (90 arcsec), while 
N1269 has none.  Otherwise, the data are the same:  NPDs 131d 43m 11s, and
descriptions "vB, R, gmbM (hazy)."

He has two observations of N1291 (on the second night, he called it a 
"mottled, but not resolved" globular cluster).  His RAs for the two nights
differ by 10 seconds, and he suggests that one is in error.  Not knowing which
one, he simply took the mean value and used that for GC.  The galaxy is so
large that both positions fall within the image.

The identity was first suggested by Robert Innes in a note in Monthly Notices
62, 468, 1902.  He could not find N1269, but had no trouble seeing N1291.
Dreyer, in his IC2 Note, did not go so far as to repeat the supposition of
identity, but succintly summarizes the other evidence.

I don't think there can be any question of the identity of the two numbers --
though without seeing JH's observing logs for that first November night of
1836, I of course cannot say this with utter certainty.
 - 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.