Mike,

I never paid a whole lot of attention to the
'reconstructed' phrase on the monument but I feel that
I would have noticed something. Once the thought did
cross my mind briefly so I poked around a bit but
didn't find what had been reconstructed so i just blew
it off. The entire monument looks as if it is of the
same age, in my opinion, not 2-tone like the
Washington Monument in DC as you suggest.

I've also read somewhere that it was imported directly
from Italy (marble?) and then placed there. I am not
convinced that reconstructed is the proper word as it
seems it may have been replaced unless the very small
square of cement that it sits on is original. I dont
recall inspecting it closely.

I say that i would have noticed something because
there was something else i did notice there. i came
across an old undated photo of the monument enclosed
in a gate and noticed that the cement foundation that
the monument sits on today is the same as in that old
photo. you can still see where the posts where in that
foundation and the surrounding half circle of cement
is clearly much newer.

To me a much greater question is why the 'initial'
point started as marker #258; in 1849 the final piece
of the continental USA puzzle still wasn't in place
(gadsden purchase) making any numbering system
counting down instead of up obsolete pretty quick.
assuming monuments were placed equidistant from each
other then we would see today strange monument
numerations but that isn't the case. maybe the
numerations took place after placement of monuments.
that then leads me to believe that after 258 was
placed then the inscriptions on it were made at a
later time, as opposed to inscribing it before it was
placed.

Mexico and USA disputed an area called la mesilla for
years after the 1848 war and today is southern NM and
El Paso, TX. so marking that 'final' point on the Rio
Grande last makes sense. so why isn't that one #258
and the 'intial' point on the pacific #1?

vc
--- acroorca2002 <orc@orcoast.com> wrote:

> but yikes
> it looks like the top of the oreo has been removed
> in victors photo attachment to message 9237
> check it out
> decapitated as well as additionally mutilated
>
> or at least it looks like the top of no other
> obeliskoid i have ever
> seen or could imagine
>
> & the base is just as chocolaty dark in that view
> too
>
> so i am growing more confident that we may really
> have here
> in monument 258
> all that is left of the original 1849 initial
> monument
> & thus not merely the oldest point on mxus
> but also part of its oldest & indeed original
> working rock
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Brian J.
> Butler
> <bjbutler@b...> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 April 2003 01:24 pm, you wrote:
> > Then it would be an oreo.
> > BJB
> >
> > > very interesting
> > > & i am going to wait for victor to return before
> shooting my
> mouth
> > > off again
> > > because i bet he will have a view of the
> capstone
> > > my preferred guess
> > >
> > > yet meanwhile i am feasting my eyes on the
> extreme
> > > discoloration & stylistic difference of the
> pedestal from the
> rest of
> > > the monument in your pic
> > > as well as the partial restoration of coloration
> that was also
> > > evidently performed on this peculiarly 1850ish
> looking rather
> > > than 1890ish looking pedestal
> > > suggested they may once have been pretty well
> matched
> > > say when reconstructed in 1894
> > >
> > > but the possibly newer stone on top hasnt
> weathered so
> darkly
> > > as the possibly older stone below it
> > > which thus could actually be the original 1849
> base
> > > never displaced
> > > but only as they say reconstructed
> > >
> > > still just guessing wildly
> > > but what if it has a dark capstone too
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Brian J.
> Butler
> > >
> > > <bjbutler@b...> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 09 April 2003 12:05 pm, you
> wrote:
> > > > Here is a picture of the east side of the
> monument. Hard to
> tell
> > >
> > > whether any
> > >
> > > > of the monument is older. I might have some
> closer
> photos, I'll
> > >
> > > check.
> > >
> > > >
>

http://www.bjbsoftware.com/corners/photos/CASMonument.jpg

> > > >
> > > > BJB
> > > >
> > > > > victor
> > > > > most handsome & pertinent too
> > > > >
> > > > > indeed you appear already to have put your
> finger on the
> final
> > > > > answer
> > > > > by directing our attention to the apparently
> key word
> > > > > reconstructed
> > > > > suggesting that the original 1849 rock has
> somehow
> been
> > > > > incorporated here into the 1894
> reconstruction
> > > > >
> > > > > so given this apparent testimony
> > > > > my guess would be that the 1849 original was
> in fact not
> > > > > discarded in 1894
> > > > > as the 1798 caus original evidently was in
> 1817
> > > > > but became the core &or capstone of the
> present
> monument
> > > > > say along the lines of the armook
> reconstruction we just
> saw
> > > > > or else the old stone is presented by &
> present within the
> > > > > present monument in some other less obvious
> way
> > > > >
> > > > > but can you further encourage such a surmise
> > > > > from your memory &or pix
> > > > > because if so then that would mean we are
> already
> > >
> > > practically
> > >
> > > > > looking at the clear victor here
> > > > > as i believe we are
> > > > > & need search no farther afield
> > > > > but need only find & zero in further on the
> visibly older part
> if
> > >
> > > any
> > >
> > > > > of monument 258
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Victor
> Cantore
> > > > >
> > > > > <drpotatoes@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > mike,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > monument 258 on usmx was placed on oct 10
> 1849
> and
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > > > actual one there today was reconstructed
> in 1894.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the Mexican side of the monument uses the
> word
> > > > > > 'fijado' (fixed) and the US side uses the
> word
> > > > > > 'established' to confirm that date. The
> treaty date is
> > > > > > also mentioned separately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > also, by use of the word 'Intial' one can
> assume that
> > > > > > this was the first marker placed on usmx.
> Everything i
> > > > > > have read on the subject confirms that as
> well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i do have a photo of the caazbc marker
> (#207) as well
> > > > > > no close ups though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > vc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- m donner <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > > > > > according to
> > > > > > >
> http://home.earthlink.net/~dawise/Maine.htm
> > > > > > > the oldest known extant caus monument
> dates from
> > > > > > > 1817
> > > > > > > but it was a replacement for a 1798
> original
> > > > > > > which was itself the first monument on
> the caus line
> > > > > > > or rather on what was then the gbus line
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the position marked by these stones
> > > > > > > at the source of the st croix river
> > > > > > > or roughly halfway up the maine new
> brunswick
> > > > > > > boundary
> > > > > > > is shown in
> > >
> > >
>

http://topozone.com/map.asp?z=19&n=5087872&e594362&s=2

> > >
> > > > > 5&symshow=n
> > > > >
> > > > > > > &
>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com