Hi Phyllis & all, Both of your maps came through to me just fine on the second try. I never got anything for your first try. I have the following thoughts on parts of your message. Phyllis Ryerse wrote: > This message came back to me....saying it had made too many bounces - > whatever that means!! > I'll try it again.......but in the meantime, Doug figured out that a > kilometer is smaller than a mile......and the old surveyors were almost > right on the money. So apparently, when I drove that 1-3/4.....considering > the stop lights and traffic and the fact that I was sightseeing along the > way..... > resulted in my "feeling" that the distance was much more than 1-3/4 miles. > So that question has been nicely solved. > Glad you fellows know all that great "stuff" about chains and links and > perches and kilometers!! ;-)) Doug is correct - One Kilometer (km) equals 3280.84 (rounded) feet which equals 0.61 (rounded) statue miles (sm.) - or - one sm. equals 1.61 (rounded) km. And, according to your maps, your conclusion that your "feeling" was inaccurate is also correct. The 1708 map is a sketch map, as opposed to a precisely surveyed map and as a result the bends and turns of the rivers are not perfectly portrayed. There is also the possibility (probability) that some of its banks may have wandered a bit in the past 290 years. Also, John's spread was not in the form of a rectangle. On the modern map (using the old map to locate the boundaries of John's plot) I measured the northern (longest) boundary at about 1.9-2.0 sm. and the southern (shorter) boundary at about 1.4 sm. This would make the mean right about what it should be - about 1.75 sm. Dick