bergeat on 21-Sep-2015 09:42:44 GMT about CGCS 270
Sorry for the delay in answering your question. I reconsidered the case and now agree that 2MASSJ01462807+5653093 is too bright and probably too far taking into account the position accuracy 1 as quoted in the CGCS.
UCAC3 294-38735= 2MASSJ01460215+5654145 you suggested would better fit
but my analysis points to K3g with E(B-V)=0.39. The JHKs- data is not consistent
with a carbon-rich solution.
I now favor CGCS 270=2MASSJ01461984+5655148 at r=1',15 as HC2.0 with
E(B-V)=0.21 or HC1.5 with 0.35 to be compared to line of sight 0.38 from IRSA.
The Ic=11.53 from Droege+ (2007, TASS) and J=10.40 are consistent with
i=11.1 in CGCS. Other candidates within 4' look like oxygen-rich.
Services
Others
Sesame name resolver
Dictionary of nomenclature
Contact us
Help
View annotation on CGCS 270 object