NGC/IC Project Restoration Effort

===== NGC 6529 was apparently first seen by James Dunlop who claimed two observations of it. His description reads, "A pretty large faint nebula, round figure, 5' or 6' diameter, resolvable into very minute stars, with nebula remaining." Unlike most of Dunlop's nebulae, JH claims to have seen this one, though only once. He lists an estimated position (both coordinates with +- signs, the RA given to a full minute only) that is close to Dunlop's and calls it "A large milky way patch, much compressed, one portion much more so." However, checking the position on the SERC IIIa-J film shows nothing more than a rather unremarkable part of the Milky Way. Nothing stands out that strikes me as something that would catch an observer's eye. Compare this to other Milky Way fields that have NGC numbers (e.g. NGC 6476 and NGC 6480) from JH's sweeps -- there is nothing obvious here. I've put the nominal position in the table. I also checked the other nebulae seen in the same sweep; all are at about the same declination, so there is no large error in that part of JH's observation. A large RA error is possible, but I found nothing in the obvious places (plus or minus one minute, ten minutes, etc.). Neither Lauberts nor Steinicke has anything aside from the nominal position, though Lauberts has a "concentration of stars" noted in ESO-B. Finally, I checked the sweep itself (sweep 792 on 8 June 1837) when I went over this field again in January 2016. The observation, number 24 in the sweep, reads only "[17] 57" for the RA, and "3 26" for the NPD index (most of JH's description is illegible). Fortunately, the very next object in the sweep is a star, HD 166197. We know the position and proper motion of this star, so can use it as a reference. Doing that we find for NGC 6529 18 07 02, -36 17.0 (J2000). Unfortunately, this field is just as unremarkable on the DSS as the one at JH's published position. Perhaps a visual observer can turn up something here.