****************************************************************************
Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT - 
****************************************************************************


By Chris Landsea, Craig Anderson, William Bredemeyer, Cristina Carrasco,
Noel Charles, Michael Chenoweth, Gil Clark, Sandy Delgado, Jason Dunion, 
Ryan Ellis, Jose Fernandez-Partagas, Steve Feuer, John Gamache,  
David Glenn, Andrew Hagen, Lyle Hufstetler, Cary Mock, Charlie Neumann,
Ramon Perez Suarez, Ricardo Prieto, Jorge Sanchez-Sesma, Adrian Santiago,
Jamese Sims, Donna Thomas, Lenworth Woolcock, and Mark Zimmer.


Special thanks to:  Sim Aberson, James Belanger, Auguste Boissonnade,
Emery Boose, Hugh Cobb, Jose Colon, Neal Dorst, Daniel Gladstein,
Mark Guishard, Paul Hebert, Paul Hungerford, Mark Jelinek, Brian Jones,
Lorne Ketch, David Roth, Al Sandrik, and David Vallee.



Introduction

1) Original re-analysis efforts completed in 2000 provided an addition
to HURDAT for the years 1851 to 1885, based upon the encyclopedic work of
Partagas and Diaz as well as other sources.  Unless otherwise stated,
observations mentioned here are from the Partagas and Diaz reports.  

2) In August 2002, a re-analysis of 1992's Hurricane Andrew's intensity was
approved and incorporated into HURDAT.  A brief synopsis of the results
of this re-analysis are provided here.  A full description of presentations
made and minutes of deliberations are provided on-line at:
   http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/andrew.html

3) Re-analysis work completed in 2003 focussed upon the period of 1886 to
1910, with some additional changes to the earlier 1851 to 1885 era.  Again
the main sources utilized for this effort were the Partagas and Diaz 
reports and all observations described come from these reports unless
otherwise explicitly referenced.

4) In 2005, changes and additions are made for the period of 1911 to 1914. 
This is the first era completed in the reanalysis that did not have 
the benefit of Jose Fernandez Partagas' efforts. Co-authors on these changes 
are William Bredemeyer, John Gamache, and Lenworth Woolcock, with special 
thanks are due to Michael Chenoweth and Cary Mock. We revised all 15 existing 
tropical storms and hurricanes during this four year period, added 5 new 
tropical storms, and discussed (but did not add in) an additional 19 suspect 
systems. While there were no major US hurricanes during this relatively quiet 
period, Jamaica experienced one of their worst hurricanes ever in a late 
season system in November 1912. A surprising finding was the lack of any new 
tropical storms or hurricanes for 1914, which was and remains the quietest 
hurricane season ever for the Atlantic basin with just one tropical storm.

5) In 2006, many corrections were made for U.S. landfalling tropical
cyclones based upon research conducted by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger.
Additionally, explicit notation was given for U.S. hurricanes during the
entire 1851 to 2005 period that caused hurricane conditions (estimated
maximum sustained surface winds of 64 kt or greater) in an inland
state.

6) In 2007, minor alterations were introduced for a few cyclones during 
the period of 1989 to 2005 to fix a couple typographic errors, to correctly
indicate U.S. states impacted and to make slight adjustments to the HURDAT
positions/intensities for two days in Ophelia and one time period in Wilma.

7) In 2008, a complete reanalysis was conducted for the years of 1915 to 1920.
All storms of the era were revised in track and intensity.  Eight new tropical 
storms were added during this period and one of the original tropical storms in
HURDAT was removed.

8) In 2009, a complete reanalysis was conducted for the years of
1921 to 1925.  All 27 tropical storms and hurricanes of the era 
were revised in track and intensity (with one in 1923 removed
from HURDAT).  10 new tropical cyclones were added for these five
years.  Most significant hurricanes of this era were the 1921 
Tampa Bay hurricane that struck as a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane
Scale Category 3, the 1922 Bermuda hurricane that struck the
Bermuda islands as a Category 3, and the 1924 Cuba hurricane
that struck as a Category 5 (and is now the first recorded Category
5 hurricane in the database).

9) In 2010, a complete reanalysis was conducted for the years 
of 1926 to 1930.  All 29 tropical storms and hurricanes were
revised in their tracks and intensities.  Four new tropical storm
were discovered and added into HURDAT.  Most significant
hurricanes of this era were the 1926 Category 4 hurricane in
the Bahamas, the 1926 Category 4 Great Miami hurricane, 
the 1926 Category 4 Hurricane in Cuba (these three major hurricanes
in 1926 were separate systems), the 1928 Category 5 San Felipe 
(Puerto Rico)/Category 4 Lake Okeechobee hurricane, the 1929
Category 4 hurricane in the Bahamas, and the 1930 Category 4 
hurricane in the Dominican Republic.

10) In August 2011 – Multiple changes are introduced to HURDAT: 
1) Four new tropical cyclones were added:  1899 (tropical storm), 1901 (hurricane),
1904 (hurricane), and 1909 (tropical storm);
2) Alterations to the track and/or intensity of some tropical cyclones in 1857, 1859,
1866, 1882, 1885, 1887, 1900, 1901, 1909, 1910, 1912, 1915, 1921, 1922, 1925,
1926, 1927, and 1930;
3) Significant changes for U.S. hurricanes:  1857 North Carolina hurricane -
upgraded from Category 1 to Category 2, a new 1859 Florida Category 1 hurricane,
1882 Louisiana hurricane - downgraded from a Category 2 to a tropical storm,
1885 South Carolina hurricane - downgraded from Category 3 to Category 2,
1887 Texas hurricane - downgraded from Category 2 to Category 1, and
1925 Florida hurricane - downgraded from a Category 1 to a tropical storm; 
4) Minor intensity changes for Georges (1980), Floyd (1981), Helene (1988), and
Keith (1988).  These all contained original best track windspeeds to the overly
precise nearest 1 kt.  Values are adjusted to the nearest 5 kt currently used.

11) In 2012, a complete reanalysis of the Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT) was 
conducted for the 1931 to 1935 seasons. All 58 tropical storms and hurricanes 
were revised in their tracks and intensities. 15 new tropical storms were 
discovered and added into HURDAT, while four existing systems were removed 
from the database. This era also recorded one of the busiest hurricane seasons 
on record with 20 tropical storms observed in 1933, 11 of which became 
hurricanes. (Originally, HURDAT listed 21 tropical storms, 10 of which were 
hurricanes. In that season, there were two new tropical storms discovered, 
two existing cyclones were removed from the database as they did not reach 
tropical storm intensity, and two existing storms were actually one 
continuous system.)

The years of 1931 to 1935 recorded four of the 25 most deadly hurricanes in 
the historical record for the Atlantic basin. A Category 4 hurricane on the 
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale struck Belize (then British Honduras) in 
1931 and killed around 2,500 people. In November 1932, the "Huracán de Santa 
Cruz del Sur" struck Cuba as a Category 4 hurricane and killed about 
3,500 people primarily in a storm surge that reached about 20 feet. In 
June 1934, a tropical storm (which later became a hurricane) caused torrential 
rainfall, flashfloods and mudslides, killing about 3,000 people in Honduras 
and El Salvador. In October 1935, a Category 1 hurricane killed around 
2,150 people in Haiti and Honduras due to extreme rains and flashfloods.

The 1931 to 1935 hurricane seasons were an active period for the continental 
United States as well, as it was struck by twelve hurricanes (eleven previously 
listed in HURDAT). Of these twelve, four were major hurricanes (five previously 
listed in HURDAT): a Category 4 hurricane in Texas in 1932, a Category 3 
hurricane in Texas in 1933, a Category 3 hurricane in Florida also in 1933, 
and a Category 5 hurricane in Florida in 1935. This last hurricane, known as 
the "Labor Day Hurricane" because of its landfall on that date in September, 
was the strongest hurricane to ever make landfall in the United States, based 
upon its central pressure of 892 mb. The maximum sustained winds at landfall 
in the Florida Keys are estimated to have been around 185 mph. This is second 
only to the 190 mph currently listed for 1969's Camille at landfall. 408 people 
were killed by the "Labor Day Hurricane", which was the 8th most deadly in the 
continental United States history. 

12) December 2012 - A reanalysis of the 1936 to 1940 hurricane seasons has 
been conducted.  All of the existing 46 tropical storms and hurricanes were 
revised (one of which - original storm #7 in 1938 - was removed from the 
database as it was extratratropical throughout its lifetime).  Additionally, 
seven new tropical storms (three of which reached hurricane intensity) were 
discovered and added into the database.  The biggest impact hurricane of 
these five seasons was, by far, the Great New England hurricane of 1938.  
This cyclone was retained as a Category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson 
Hurricane Wind Scale at its landfall in New York and New England, though the 
peak sustained winds at landfall in New York were increased from 85 kt 
(100 mph) in the original database to 105 kt (120 mph) in the revision.

*******************************************************************************

1851/01 - 2003 ADDITION:

00001 06/25/1851 M= 1  1 SNBR=   1 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
00002 06/25*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*285 965  70    0*  0   0   0    0
00003 HRBTX1

Ellis' (1988) Hurricane History of the Texas Coast (and mirrored in Roth's
(1997b) Texas Hurricane History website) includes the following description:

"June 25th, 1851:  A short but severe storm which passed over Matagorda Bay and
 was described as the most disastrous experienced there to date. Caused
 widespread damage at Saluria on Matagorda Island where saltwater contaminated
 the fresh water cisterns.  Wind damage at Port Lavaca was widespread and
 every wharf destroyed.  Indianola suffered damage to waterfront buildings,
 but the storm tide did not cover the spit of land at Power Horn."

Based upon this account, a single-point hurricane is analyzed and added to the
best track database.  It is quite possible that this hurricane was Category 2
(or stronger) given the sparseness of the population in the region.


1851/01 - 2004 REVISION:

00001 06/25/1851 M= 1  1 SNBR=   1 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
00001 06/25/1851 M= 4  1 SNBR=   1 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                    *

00002 06/25*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*285 965  70    0*  0   0   0    0
00002 06/25*280 948  80    0*280 954  80    0*280 960  80    0*281 965  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(The 26th through the 28th are new to HURDAT.)
00002 06/26*282 970  70    0*283 976  60    0*284 983  60    0*286 989  50    0
00002 06/27*290 994  50    0*295 998  40    0*3001000  40    0*3051001  40    0
00002 06/28*3101002  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0

00003 HRBTX1

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
1-6/25/1851    1200Z 28.5N  96.5W   70kt  1     (985mb)    BTX1
1-6/25/1851    2000Z 28.1N  96.7W   80kt  1     (977mb)    BTX1
               ****  ****   ****    **           ***

Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina obtained some observations
that pertain to this hurricane from Corpus Christi and Fort Brown.  
Additionally, Prof. Mock and Mr. David Roth of the Hydrometeorological
Prediction Center obtained newspaper accounts of the impact of its landfall 
in Texas.  (The observations were primarily from Army Forts that observed the 
weather four times a day:  near sunrise, 9 a.m., 3 p.m., and 9 p.m.  Winds 
could range from a range of 0 to 10, with a 6 being equivalent to about 
40 kt gusts, a 7 about 50 kt gusts and an 8 about 65 kt gusts.)  A 
search of the NCDC archives revealed, in addition to those provided
by Prof. Mock, observations from the following Texas forts:  Fort
Graham, Fort Mcintosh, Fort Croghan, Fort Lincoln, Fort Martin Scott,
Fort Ringgold, San Antonio, Fort Merrill, Fort Duncan and New Wild.
Relevant observations are shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corpus Christi, Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - ENE1 NE1  NE4  NW1  80/85/89/83
Jun. 26, 1851 - S5   SSW2 SSW3 ESE4 74/76/78/74  rain 1am to 6 1/2 pm 3.00"
Jun. 27, 1851 - S1   S3   SE6  SSE6 79/83/88/83

Fort Mcintosh (Laredo), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - E2   SE2  SE2  NE2  73/93/98/88
Jun. 26, 1851 - N2   NW2  NW2  SE3  75/92/98/83  rain began ?
Jun. 27, 1851 - NW2  E2   SW2  SE2  70/78/92/79  rain ended ? 2.48"

Fort Croghan (30.5N, 98.3W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - S3   SE4  SE4  SE3  75/85/95/80
Jun. 26, 1851 - NE2  E3   E3   E3   70/80/86/82  0.19" 
Jun. 27, 1851 - S3   SE4  S4   SE4  82/81/82/79
Notes from Jun. 26th:  At 10 A.M. a slight shower.  Showers from 11 P.M.
through the night.

Fort Lincoln (29.4N, 99.5W), Texas (no temperatures):
Jun. 25, 1851 - SE1  SE2  SE3  SE2  
Jun. 26, 1851 - NW3  N4   N4   SE8  11 a.m. rain began, 9 p.m. rain ended 0.8"
Jun. 27, 1851 - SE1  E4   ENE5 SE2  9 a.m. rain began, 3 p.m. rain ended 0.35"
Notes from Jun 26th:  Rain fell in showers at intervals, accompanied by 
heavy winds.

Fort Martin Scott (30.2N, 98.8W), Texas (no precipitation totals):
Jun. 25, 1851 - SE1  SE1  NE2  SE1  70/80/93/74
Jun. 26, 1851 - E1   NE3  NE3  SE1  69/76/82/71  rain at intervals during day
Jun. 27, 1851 - E1   SE2  SW3  SE4  68/76/83/72  rain at intervals during day

San Antonio, Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - E1   E2   N2   NE3  75/81/87/82
Jun. 26, 1851 - N1   NE4  NE4  E2   72/78/74/72
Jun. 27, 1851 - E2   SE1  SE1  NE3  70/74/78/74  rain began 11 a.m.
Addendum: Rain ended on the 28th at 11 a.m. 1.00" 

Fort Merrill (28.2N, 98.1W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - 0    NE2  NE4  NE5  77/85/91/81
Jun. 26, 1851 - W5   SW5  S2   S2   75/85/77/82  rain began 6 a.m.
Jun. 27, 1851 - S1   S4   S3   S4   78/83/82/80  rain ended 3 a.m. 1.25"

Fort Duncan (Eagle Pass), Texas: 
Jun. 25, 1851 - E2   E2   S2   S3   80/84/95/89
Jun. 26, 1851 - E2   N2   N3   N2   81/83/94/87
Jun. 27, 1851 - N2   E2   E2   S3   80/82/90/84
Notes:  No rain on these dates.  Wind apparently reported to nearest 90
degree interval.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 9, 1851, p.2
This vessel [The Maria Burt] left Galveston on the 24th ult.  That night
a heavy gale commenced blowing, and the next day, about 10 A.M., the
steamer put back for Sabine Pass.

The Matagorda Tribune, June 30, 1851
Violent Gale on Matagorda Bay - The Shipping driven Ashore - Several Houses
Blown down at Indianola, Saluria, and Port Cavallo. 
One of the heaviest gales that has perhaps ever been experienced in this 
section of country, occurred within the past week.  Early on Wednesday 
morning [June 25th], it commenced raining furiously, and continued to pour 
down in torrents for nearly the whole of that day and the following night, 
with few intermissions, accompanied by violent gales of wind, frequently 
veering from the east, northeast and southeast. Although we believe no 
material damage has been done hereabouts, beyond perhaps the leveling of some 
of the more exposed garden patches, the result, we understand, has been 
calamitous to the shipping and to our neighbors, situated on the lower bay.  
From Port Lavaca, we have not, as yet, had any tidings, but Indianola, 
Saluria, and Port Cavallo, appear to have suffered considerable loss
from the fury of the gale.  At the former place, we learn, every wharf has been
carried away, and a number of houses had either been leveled to the earth, or
blown from their foundations.  At Saluria, considerable damage has also been
Done.  Port Cavallo, however, has escaped with less injury, as will be seen by
The following extract from a letter from thence, addressed to a gentleman in 
this city, under date of 27th June.
           The loss and injury sustained among the shipping on the bay, has
        doubtless been far greater than we have yet had any particulars of.
        We learn at the present writing by a vessel just up from below, that
        the Steamship Mexico was driven ashore opposite, or near Powder
        Horn Bayou, and was still lying on the flats in that vicinity when our
        informant left - that the depot or freight steamer Portland shared the
        same fate, together with several other smaller crafts.  The steamer
        Wm. Penn was driven ashore from her anchorage near Saluria, and
        will probably be a total loss.

Port Cavallo, June 27, 1851
Our place has been visited by the most terrible storm which has occurred
on this coast within the memory of the oldest inhabitant.  It commenced 
Wednesday the 25th inst.  The sun rose clear, with the exception of a few 
heavy clouds hanging to the northward, but the tide commenced rising with 
unprecedented rapidity - the storm in the meantime increasing to that degree, 
that by 4 P.M., it was blowing a perfect hurricane.  Thus it continued all 
night, coming with frightful violence.  What with the torrents of rain, the 
howling of the winds and the roaring of the sea, it was a scene baffling 
all description.  The damage here had been quite trifling, considering the
great strength of the gale.  Mr. Doerow had one of the chimneys to his new
house blown over, and his fields much injured - the fences being generally
prostrated.  The warehouse and wharf stood it bravely.  The wharf is uninjured -
the warehouse had a few blocks washed from under it, which is the only damage
it sustained.  Mr. Maverick's house was blown from its blocks - that is to say,
the small house in his yard.  This is the total amount of damage done here, 
except a few more fences blown down.

The schr. Velasco, with a heavy cargo of cotton and molasses, returned
back over the bar, having sprung a leak - She made fast to the wharf there and
commenced discharging, but the gale and leak still increasing, she was winded
around on the flat below the wharf where she now lies.

The schr. Buena Vista, lying at anchor on the Saluria side, dragged and
went ashore.  The morning she got off, and came to on this side.  
Mr. Harrison's pilot boat went ashore on the Saluria side, and is a complete 
wreck.  Mr. Givins' house was blown from the blocks and broke in two.  Judge 
Rose's warehouse at Saluria was also blown from the blocks.  Gen. 
Summerville's house is blown and destroyed.  Dr. McCreary's house in much 
injured - gallery gone.

In addition to the above, a letter was last night received by Messrs.
Doswell, Hill & Co., from Capt. Talbot, dated on Tuesday, the 26th ult., which
states that the freight of the Mexico had been discharged before the heavy blow
came on.  The Mexico was then dropped astern of the Portland, and both anchors
thrown out.  At 10 P.M. on Wednesday, the gale increased to great violence, and
grew more violent until 11 1/2, when the Portland broke adrift and went ashore.
The Mexico had then gotten steam up, and was working full stroke with 20 inches
of steam, and two anchors out with 60 fathoms of chain, but all could not 
resist the violence of the storm.  About one o'clock, the Mexico broke from 
her anchorage, and was driven on a hard bottom with six feet of water.

Capt. Boehner says he never before saw so high a tide in that bay.  All
Capt. Talbot's hands were at work getting out coal, and every exertion was 
being made to get her off, but the captain has very little hope of success 
until he can have the assistance of the Louisiana.  Captain Talbot adds:

      Captain Boehner's lighter is ashore, the Wm. Penn is a total wreck, all
      the wharves at Indianola are gone, and some few houses prostrated.  The
      J. Smith, although sunk decks under water, was driven three quarters of a
      mile, and is pretty much all to pieces.

The Advocate, Victoria TX, July 3, 1851, p. 2
A storm of wind and rain, unprecedented in violence in this region, passed 
over this place, in common with every other point from which we have heard, 
from the Bay and Gulf immediately below us as high up as the Western portion 
of De Witt county, and extending as far West as the "Mission of Refugio," 
on Wednesday night of last week, (the 25th and 26th ult.)  The damage done 
to buildings, fences, fruit and shade trees in this place is by no means 
inconsiderable.  No serious injury occurred to any building that was 
inhabited, or occupied, except by workmen engaged in the completion of the 
same.

At Saluria, we learn, several buildings were injured by the violence of the 
gale and the wash of the tide.  Another evil resulting from the storm there, 
we understand, is the mixture of the water and spray from the Gulf with the 
water of the cisterns of the place, to such an extent as to render it unfit 
for use.

At Indianola, and its vicinity, the effects of the storm are given somewhat 
in detail by our correspondent.  It is spoken of us being the severest storm 
ever experienced in that place.

At Lavaca, in slip from the office of the "Commercial," informs us the 
ravages of the storm were quite disastrous to property, though most happily, 
not to life.  Our friend of the "Commercial" says:
        Every one of the wharves belonging to the merchant of this place was 
        destroyed.  Of some, scarce vestige was left.  The warehouse of 
        Mr. Ross was swept away by the violence of the tide, whilst other 
        sustained slighter injuries.

The schooner William & Morris, trading between this place and 
Galveston, and which was anchored at the wharf of R. M. Forbes & Co., 
was thrown by the fury of the waves on the beach, where she remains 
high and dry.  Ornamental and fruit trees have been blown down, 
fences and pilings prostrated.  We have not learned the amount of damage 
sustained by this destructive tornado, but it will be several thousand dollars.

Some damage has been done to dwellings and farm houses in the country, not 
only in the valley of the Guadelupe, but in the Colette settlement.  The 
injury done to corn in all this region will be considerable.  Some fields 
have been laid entirely level with the earth, and place beyond the 
possibility of yielding more than one third of a crop.

Quite an amount of timber along the Guadelupe and San Antonio rivers, 
between this and the Espiritu Santa Bay, have been blown down and destroyed.

At Carlos' Ranch, we heard quite a number of buildings are prostrated.  The 
damages done to the property there is considerable, and will be severely 
felt, as it falls upon those who are poorly able to sustain such losses.

At the Mission, in Refugio county, the progress and force of the storm were 
manifested in the injury done to buildings, fences and trees.  In one 
instance, it is reported, one of the residents of the place - a female at 
that - while attempting to return to her house on foot, across an open place, 
was blown out quite a distance on to the prairie, and by the time she could 
retrace her steps against the wind and reach the village, she was almost 
entirely divested of her clothing.

At Goliad, the severity of the storm was felt, we understand, in the 
demolition of several buildings, and other injuries done to property.  It is 
somewhat remarkable, that in all the accounts we have thus far received, no 
other injury appears to have accrued to human life than that occasioned by 
exposure to the rain, at an unseasonable hour of the night.  It is possible, 
however, when we come to receive the history of the storm more in detail, 
this happy exemption will be dashed by incidents of a painful and heart-
rendering character.

Since the above was in type, we learn, from a gentleman just arrived from 
Espiritu Santa Bay, that the houses of Messrs. Kuykendall, Burns, Hays, 
Tucker, and Judge Duke, in that vicinity, were all demolished, or seriously 
injured by the gale.  One or two persons are said to have been more or less 
injured, either by falling timbers, or by exposure to the storm.  Mrs. Burns 
is said to have dies the next morning after the occurrence of the storm, 
having been sick for sometime previous.

We regret to learn that the new mail Steamship Mexico is so hard aground in 
the Bay, that it will be necessary to take out her engines, &c., before she 
can be removed from her present dangerous position.

The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 11, 1851, p.2
More of the Texas Gale - Indianola, Texas, June 27, 1851
[To the] Editors Picayune - I have to advise you of the effects of one of
the worst gales every known on this bay.  The storm commenced on the 25th,
and continued till daylight of the 26th.  The wind prevailed from northeast
to southeast.  The wharves at this place were carried away; the steamboat
Wm Penn was blown aground, filled with water, and was badly damaged; all
the small boats in the bay were stranded and greatly injured.  Several
small houses on the water's edge were more or less injured, and
considerable damage was done in various ways.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hurricane's landfall near Matagorda Bay was not closely observed from 
any of the fort locations, though Fort Merrill likely was just to the
south of the inland center just before 12 UTC on the 26th and Fort Lincoln
was just to the north of the inland center around 00 UTC on the 27th.  
From the impacts described in the newspaper accounts - especially the
peak winds shifting from northeast to southeast in Indianola and only
easterly component in Matagorda - indicate a landfall southwest of those
locations.  The observations then indicated a track at landfall toward the 
northwest with a turn to the north over the next two days as it decayed.  It 
is estimated that the storm dissipated early on the 28th over central 
Texas.  Thus a track for this hurricane has now been attempted and data
from the ship "Maria Burt" allow for a portion of track to be determined
on the 25th before landfall.  The winds are increased slightly at landfall to 
better match the original damage descriptions as well as to account for a 
long-lasting system after landfall (estimated 65 kt gusts at 00 UTC
on the 27th at Fort Lincoln).  It is noted that high winds seen at some
forts on the 27th were due to straight-line southeasterly flow not 
directly related to the hurricane itself.

1851/01 - 2011 REVISION:

00005 06/25/1851 M= 4  1 SNBR=   1 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
00010 06/25*280 948  80    0*280 954  80    0*280 960  80    0*281 965  80    0*
00015 06/26*282 970  70    0*283 976  60    0*284 983  60    0*286 989  50    0*
00020 06/27*290 994  50    0*295 998  40    0*3001000  40    0*3051001  40    0*
00025 06/28*3101002  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
00030 HRBTX1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-6/25/1851    2100Z 28.2N  96.8W   80kt  1    ---   (977mb)   BTX1
1-6/25/1851    2100Z 28.2N  96.8W   80kt  1    ---   (974mb)   BTX1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 80 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 977 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 974 mb - 
for an 80 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.


*******************************************************************************



1851/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was
storm #1 in Partagas and Diaz), except to assume a date of July 5th for 
storm "before July 7th".  No track available, only one point.  Storm 
determined to be a hurricane based upon destruction that occurred in Tampico.

********************************************************************************

1851/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was
storm #2 in Partagas and Diaz), though storm documentation is somewhat weak.  
No track available, only one point.

********************************************************************************

1851/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was
storm #3 in Partagas and Diaz). Inland winds over Hispanola, Cuba and SE US 
reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model, 
but windspeed values over Hispanola and Cuba had an accelerated rate of 
decay due to the enhanced topography.   Storm tide value of 12' obtained from 
Ludlum (1963) and Barnes (1998) for St. Marks, Florida.  Storm determined to 
have reached major hurricane status based upon storm tide and extreme damage 
at landfall.  Ludlum also called this storm the "Great Middle Florida 
Hurricane of August 1851".  The best track provided appears to describe the 
full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical 
storm to its peak as a major hurricane until its dissipation below tropical 
storm strength).


1851/04 - 2006 REVISION:
         
00065 08/16/1851 M=12  4 SNBR=   4 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
00070 08/16*134 480  40    0*137 495  40    0*140 510  50    0*144 528  50    0*
00075 08/17*149 546  60    0*154 565  60    0*159 585  70    0*161 604  70    0*
00080 08/18*166 625  80    0*169 641  80    0*172 660  90    0*176 676  90    0*
00085 08/19*180 693  90    0*184 711  70    0*189 726  60    0*194 743  60    0*
00090 08/20*199 759  70    0*205 776  70    0*212 790  70    0*219 804  70    0*
00095 08/21*226 814  60    0*232 825  60    0*239 836  70    0*244 843  70    0*
00100 08/22*250 849  80    0*256 855  80    0*262 860  90    0*268 863  90    0*
00105 08/23*274 865 100    0*280 866 100    0*285 866 100    0*296 861 100    0*
00110 08/24*307 851  90    0*316 841  70    0*325 830  60    0*334 814  50    0*
00115 08/25*340 800  40    0*348 786  40    0*358 770  40    0*368 751  40    0*
00120 08/26*378 736  40    0*389 718  40    0*400 700  40    0*413 668  40    0*
00125 08/27*428 633  40    0*445 602  40    0*464 572  40    0*485 542  40    0*
00130 HRAFL3 GA1
00130 HRAFL3IGA1
            ****

Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's 
Atlantic coast.

1851/04 - 2011 REVISION:

00065 08/16/1851 M=12  4 SNBR=   4 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
00070 08/16*134 480  40    0*137 495  40    0*140 510  50    0*144 528  50    0*
00075 08/17*149 546  60    0*154 565  60    0*159 585  70    0*161 604  70    0*
00080 08/18*166 625  80    0*169 641  80    0*172 660  90    0*176 676  90    0*
00085 08/19*180 693  90    0*184 711  70    0*189 726  60    0*194 743  60    0*
00090 08/20*199 759  70    0*205 776  70    0*212 790  70    0*219 804  70    0*
00095 08/21*226 814  60    0*232 825  60    0*239 836  70    0*244 843  70    0*
00100 08/22*250 849  80    0*256 855  80    0*262 860  90    0*268 863  90    0*
00105 08/23*274 865 100    0*280 866 100    0*285 866 100    0*296 861 100    0*
00110 08/24*307 851  90    0*316 841  70    0*325 830  60    0*334 814  50    0*
00115 08/25*340 800  40    0*348 786  40    0*358 770  40    0*368 751  40    0*
00120 08/26*378 736  40    0*389 718  40    0*400 700  40    0*413 668  40    0*
00125 08/27*428 633  40    0*445 602  40    0*464 572  40    0*485 542  40    0*
00130 HRAFL3IGA1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-8/23/1851    2100Z 30.1N  85.7W  100kt  3    ---   (960mb)   AFL3,IGA1
4-8/23/1851    2100Z 30.1N  85.7W  100kt  3    ---   (955mb)   AFL3,IGA1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 100 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 960 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 955 mb - 
for a 100 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************


1851/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was
storm #4 in Partagas and Diaz).  Storm assumed to be stationary for 4 days.

********************************************************************************

1851/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Inland winds over NE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay 
model.  The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of 
this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its 
dissipation below tropical storm strength).

********************************************************************************

1851 - Additional Notes:  
1.  The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1851 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of the evidence suggesting that the 
storm did not actually exist.  Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported 
reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information.

********************************************************************************

1852/01:  Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and 
Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US.  
Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay 
model.  FL Keys experienced hurricane conditions, but not landfall of center.  
Storm tide value of 12' obtained from Ho (1989) and Barnes (1998) for Mobile, 
Alabama.  Using Ho's suggested central pressure of 961 mb at landfall in AL/MS 
gives 99 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, thus utilizing 
100 kt in best track - a major hurricane.  Storm is also known as the "Great 
Mobile Hurricane of 1852" from Ludlum (1963).

1852/01 - 2003 REVISION:

00165 08/19/1852 M= 9  1 SNBR=   5 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
00165 08/19/1852 M=12  1 SNBR=   6 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                   **            *

00170 08/19*205 671  60    0*207 680  60    0*209 688  60    0*211 696  60    0
00175 08/20*212 706  70    0*215 719  70    0*217 730  70    0*219 740  70    0
00180 08/21*221 749  80    0*222 761  80    0*226 771  80    0*229 781  80    0
00185 08/22*232 793  90    0*235 801  90    0*238 811  90    0*242 821  90    0
00190 08/23*247 831  90    0*252 839  90    0*257 846  90    0*262 853  90    0
00195 08/24*267 860 100    0*272 866 100    0*277 871 100    0*282 875 100    0
00200 08/25*286 878 100    0*288 880 100    0*291 881 100    0*294 884 100    0
00200 08/25*286 878 100    0*288 880 100    0*291 882 100    0*294 884 100    0
                                                  ***

00205 08/26*298 886 100    0*302 886 100  961*306 885  90    0*312 881  70    0
00210 08/27*319 876  50    0*325 869  40    0*330 861  40    0*334 850  40    0
00210 08/27*318 874  50    0*323 863  40    0*328 848  40    0*332 828  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

(28th to the 30th are new to HURDAT)
00211 08/28*335 805  40    0*338 782  40    0*340 760  40    0*344 742  40    0
00212 08/29*352 728  50    0*364 718  50    0*380 708  50    0*396 696  50    0
00213 08/30*410 680  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0

00215 HRBFL1 AL3 MS3AFL1
00215 HRBFL1 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1
                     ***

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
1-8/26/1852    0600Z 30.2N  88.6W  100kt  3      961mb    AL3,MS3,AFL1
1-8/26/1852    0600Z 30.2N  88.6W  100kt  3      961mb    AL3,MS3,LA2,AFL1
                                                                  ***

Roth (1997a) provided the following description of this hurricane's
impacts in Louisiana's Chandeleur Island: 

"Four new channels were cut through Chandeleur Island. The storm claimed
the 55 foot tall Chandeleur Island lighthouse and replaced it with a broad 10 
foot deep lagoon. The keepers were rescued three days later, on the verge of 
starvation."

On this basis, the hurricane is also listed as causing Category 2 hurricane
conditions in Louisiana.

Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina uncovered evidence
that this system crossed over Georgia and South Carolina as a tropical
storm and modestly redeveloped in the Atlantic.  Thus three additional
days (28th to the 30th) are included for this storm into HURDAT.  Details 
from his research are provided below:

Georgia Information on the Great Mobile Hurricane
-------------------------------------------------
Savannah GA.  Elevation 77 ft.  Observer:  John F Posey.  August 1852
Date	Time	Temp.	Pres.	Wind	Cloud.	Rain	
8/25	6am	77.2	30.189	SE	0	
8/25	2pm	87.1	30.141	SE2	6	
8/25	10pm	81.0	30.100	SSE	0	
8/26	6am	77.6	30.058	ESE	3
8/26	2pm	87.0	30.011	S	5		
8/26	10pm	81.5	30.005	SSE	5	
8/27	6am	79.0	29.934	SE	10
8/27	2pm	83.0	29.857	SSE4	10
8/27	10pm	80.4	29.778	SW4	10	0.164
8/28	6am	75.0	29.885	S	0
8/28	2pm	84.5	29.960	WSW	5
8/28	10pm	81.2	30.086	WNW	4	

Additional Observations
Date	Time	Temp.	Pres.	Wind	Cloud.	Remarks
8/27	8am	M	29.901	SSE2	10	Began to blow
8/27	11am	80.0	29.893	SSE4	10
8/27	12mid	84.6	29.893	SSE4	10
8/27	1pm	82.8	29.873	SSE4	10
8/27	2pm	83.0	29.857	SSE4	10	raining slowly at short times
8/27	3:40	83.0	29.793	SSE3	9
8/27	5:25	82.5	29.780	SSE4	10	
8/27	7:38	80.7	29.779	S4	10
8/27	10pm	80.4	29.778	SW4	10	rained after ten o'clock  0.165

Mercer University, Buford GA,  Prof. J.E. Willet, August 1852, 400 ft?
(Note that Prof. Mock determined that the pressure readings were
unreliable because of an uncalibrated barometer.)
Date	Time	   Att. Ther.	Pres.Wind (1-6) Cloud.
8/27	10:10am 	75	29.15			
8/27	11:45am 	76	29.09	
8/27	2:00pm 				SSE3	10
8/27	2:40pm  	76	28.96	
8/27	3:40pm  	76	28.94	
8/27	4:50pm  	76	28.91	
8/27	6:00pm  	76	28.90	
8/27	8:00pm  	75	28.90
8/28	5:30am		70	29.12
8/28	6:30am		70.5	29.15
8/28	7:00am				W2	5
8/28	8:20am		71	29.20	
8/28	9:30am		72	29.23
8/28	2:00pm				NNW2	 9
8/28	4:00pm          82	29.32

Remarks:
8/27 7am-3:40pm: Rain continues  almost constant  sometimes violent
8/27 4:50pm:  Rain continues  more moderate
8/27 6:00pm:  Rain continues  more moderate  Min Baro observed
8/27 8:00pm:  Rain ending.  Wind veered SSE, SE, SSE, SE, NW
8/28 5:30am-8:20am:  Clearing away
8/28 9:30am:	Clearing away.  Perfectly clear at 10 a.m.
8/28 2:00pm:  Total of Rain during Storm (say 27 hours) 3.925 Inches
8/30 12noon:  Maximum Barometer after Storm (29.63)

Whitemarsh Island (Savannah) GA.  Elevation 18 ft.  
Observer:  Richard Gibson.  August 1852
Date	Time	Wind		Cloud.	Rain	Remarks
8/25	Sunr.	0		8	
8/25	9am	SE3		5
8/25	3pm	SE3		7
8/25	9pm	S1		9		A sprinkle of Rain only fell
8/26	Sunr.	0		8
8/26	9am	SW2		7
8/26	3pm	S3		5
8/26	9pm	S1		6	0.06	Weather looked stormy again 
8/27	Sunr.	SSW2		6
8/27	9am	S4		5
8/27	3pm	S5		7
8/27	9pm	S5		7		Very little Rain.  The wind 
    has increased gradually since Sunrise and tonight is blowing a Gale
8/28	Sunr.	SW2		9
8/28	9am	W4		8
8/28	3pm	W3		6
8/28	9pm	0		7	0.02	The wind moderated after 
    9 o'clock last night

South Carolina Information on the Great Mobile Hurricane
--------------------------------------------------------
At Charleston, high wind on afternoon of 27th, and until midnight; wind S,
very little rain.  (Too much material to reproduce here in entirety - see 
Charleston Courier article by Lewis R. Gibbes on this storm in 
September 10th issue).

J.L. Dawsons Meteorological Observations from the Charleston Courier.
Date	Temp (7/2/9).	Pres (7/2/9).			Wind (sr/4pm)	Wx.
8/25	80/84/82	30.246/30.178/30.156		SE1/SE2		Fair
8/26	81/86/83	30.114/30.020/30.018		SW2/SW2		Fair
8/27	82/84/83	30.002/29.928/29.876		SW3/SE4		Rain
    0.07" rainfall
8/28	80/84/81	29.008/29.982/30.196		SW3/SW3		Fair

Black Oak Agricultural Society, Pinopolis, SC. (elevation 300 ft)
Date	Pres (sr/2/9).	Wind	Wx.				Rain
8/25	29.48/.40/.35	SE	changeable
8/26	29.33/.35/.27	SE	clear/cloudy
8/27	29.23/.20/.10	SE/S	Clear/rain/high Wind		0.05
8/28	29.10/.23/.32	WSW	clear/drizzle/cloudy
8/29	29.40/.45/.45	W	clear

Rev. Clark B. Stewart (Laurens):  25th - Rain, heavy in Evening   26th - 
The Rain fell from an early hour of the day - in perfect torrents until 
after night some time - My fence on the Creek all gone - only 1/2 an acre 
of Corn in that field - Sand left in abundance - God to praised for his 
goodness.  Uncle John Stewarts saw mill all gone and half the dam left - 
Broke and all gone - Bridges;  Mill Factorys &c. nearly all gone - Great 
loss sustained in this country

Jacob Schirmer (Charleston):  30th  Freshes dreadful Account from the up 
country, Bridges washed away, Crops destroyed cars could not reach Hamburg, 
great fears of the Columbia Bridge  31st  Weather the past Month a good deal 
of rain and hot Sun, the whole Country is inundated with water

Jesse James Hammond (Silver Bluff):  27th - there is a fresh   28th -The 
rain yesterday not heavy but enough for the season - windy River rising

Thomas Chaplin (St Helena): Storm  I neglected to state that the wind 
commenced blowing violently on Friday [Aug. 28] about midday, from south.  
Continued till Saturday morning, with driving rain Friday night.  I hope 
this is the [last] storm of the season for it has done little damage & a 
trifle in comparison with the storms about the same time last year.

Alexander Glennie:  27th near Georgetown SC- [late in the day] - SW.  Gale 
[pressure is about 29.76]  28th  SW, Clear, High Wind.

James Davis Trezevant (Orangeburg Dist.):  27th - Commenced raining about 
12 N and rained heavily nearly all the afternoon  28th - Commenced blowing 
and raining heavily during the night and continued to blow and rain until 
after sunrise when it cleared off.  The river very full today, and rising 
fast.  30th - The river came to a stand today about 1 P.M.  The water was 
4 ft 10 in higher than the May fresh of 1846 and more than 2 ft higher than 
the great Yazoo fresh of 1792[6?].

Charleston Courier, Friday, Sept. 10:
Georgetown, S.C., September 8. - The Weather and the Crops. - The rainy 
weather which we announced as commencing in June last has continued up to 
the present time with some short intervals;  and early much annoyed the 
labour in hoeing and killing grass, and during the last month was greatly 
detrimental to the curing of blades
	The great fall of rain on the 27th and 28th of August, and which 
spread vast injury from Mobile to New York, on the various rivers, is to-day 
with us on the Santee and Pee Dee rivers, and is likely to do much damage to 
the rice crop, and especially to those who plant the most fruitful tide 
lands highest up.  All the lands in the neighborhood of Lynch's causeway on 
Santee was under water yesterday.  From Pee Dee we heard yesterday and the 
water was not then over the banks;  but it is feared that to-day, the 
freshet is upon all the rice.  The wind is now high at N.E., and has been so 
for several days preventing the freshet from going to sea. - Winyah Observer

New York Herald, September 3, 1852
Aug. 30, lat 39, lon 71.  Spoke brig Extra (Br), from Savannah for Halifax;  
29th and 30th, experienced a heavy gale from NW.


1852/01 - 2006 REVISION:
                            
00195 08/19/1852 M=12  1 SNBR=   7 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
00200 08/19*205 671  60    0*207 680  60    0*209 688  60    0*211 696  60    0*
00205 08/20*212 706  70    0*215 719  70    0*217 730  70    0*219 740  70    0*
00210 08/21*221 749  80    0*222 761  80    0*226 771  80    0*229 781  80    0*
00215 08/22*232 793  90    0*235 801  90    0*238 811  90    0*242 821  90    0*
00220 08/23*247 831  90    0*252 839  90    0*257 846  90    0*262 853  90    0*
00225 08/24*267 860 100    0*272 866 100    0*277 871 100    0*282 875 100    0*
00230 08/25*286 878 100    0*288 880 100    0*291 882 100    0*294 884 100    0*
00235 08/26*298 886 100    0*302 886 100  961*306 885  90    0*312 881  70    0*
00240 08/27*318 874  50    0*323 863  40    0*328 848  40    0*332 828  40    0*
00245 08/28*335 805  40    0*338 782  40    0*340 760  40    0*344 742  40    0*
00250 08/29*352 728  50    0*364 718  50    0*380 708  50    0*396 696  50    0*
00255 08/30*410 680  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
00260 HRBFL1 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1
00260 HRBFL2 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1
        ****

Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia 
Institute of Technology, the impact from this cyclone in the Florida Keys 
(southwest Florida - "BFL") is revised to be a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale 
Category 2.  This upgrade from a Category 1 is due to the likelihood that some 
portion of the Keys experienced the most intense portion of the hurricane, 
which was 90 kt Category 2 at that time.  It was suggested previously that 
the radius of maximum wind on the cyclone's right semi-circle may have gone 
between the Dry Tortugas and Key West.  

1852/01 - 2011 REVISION:

00195 08/19/1852 M=12  1 SNBR=   7 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
00200 08/19*205 671  60    0*207 680  60    0*209 688  60    0*211 696  60    0*
00205 08/20*212 706  70    0*215 719  70    0*217 730  70    0*219 740  70    0*
00210 08/21*221 749  80    0*222 761  80    0*226 771  80    0*229 781  80    0*
00215 08/22*232 793  90    0*235 801  90    0*238 811  90    0*242 821  90    0*
00220 08/23*247 831  90    0*252 839  90    0*257 846  90    0*262 853  90    0*
00225 08/24*267 860 100    0*272 866 100    0*277 871 100    0*282 875 100    0*
00230 08/25*286 878 100    0*288 880 100    0*291 882 100    0*294 884 100    0*
00235 08/26*298 886 100    0*302 886 100  961*306 885  90    0*312 881  70    0*
00240 08/27*318 874  50    0*323 863  40    0*328 848  40    0*332 828  40    0*
00245 08/28*335 805  40    0*338 782  40    0*340 760  40    0*344 742  40    0*
00250 08/29*352 728  50    0*364 718  50    0*380 708  50    0*396 696  50    0*
00255 08/30*410 680  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
00260 HRBFL2 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-8/22/1852    1200Z 23.8N  81.3W   90kt  2    ---   (977mb)   BFL2
1-8/22/1852    1200Z 23.8N  81.3W   90kt  2    ---   (970mb)   BFL2
                                                      ***

1-8/26/1852    0600Z 30.2N  88.6W  100kt  3   30nmi   961mb    AL3,MS3,LA2,AFL1
1-8/26/1852    0600Z 30.2N  88.6W  100kt  3   10nmi   961mb    AL3,MS3,LA2,AFL1
                                              **

The estimated central pressure at landfall in the Florida Keys at 12Z on the 22nd 
was incorrectly listed as 977 mb because of a typographical error.  Using the 
southern pressure-wind relationship for a 90 kt hurricane, this suggests that the 
central pressure was around 970 mb instead.

The original Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind relationship gave 99 kt for the 961 mb 
central pressure at landfall near the Alabama/Mississippi border.  The new 
relationship developed for north of 25N by Brown et al. (2006) suggests 94 kt.  
Originally, a large RMW value (30 nmi) was indicated by Ho (1987).  However, 
given the slow (4 kt) translational speed at landfall coupled with a lull 
experienced at Mobile of two hours or less suggest a much smaller RMW, perhaps as 
small as 10 nm.  This value is substantially smaller than climatology (20 nmi - 
Vickery et al. 2000) for this latitude and central pressure.  Thus keeping the 
landfall intensity at 100 kt and thus the Saffir-Simpson Category at 3 are reasonable.  
No changes are thus made to HURDAT, but the estimated RMW is changed from 30 to 10 nm.


********************************************************************************

1852/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm 
is also known as "San Lorenzo" in Puerto Rico from impact there.

********************************************************************************



1852/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Inland 
winds over Florida reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay 
model.  The storm is determined to have reached hurricane status both in the 
Gulf of Mexico and again over the Atlantic Ocean based upon ship reports from 
the "Union" and the "Emily Banning".

1852/03 - 2003 REVISION:

00255 09/09/1852 M= 5  3 SNBR=   8 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
00255 09/09/1852 M= 5  3 SNBR=   9 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                                 *

00260 09/09*264 904  70    0*265 896  70    0*266 888  70    0*266 881  70    0
00265 09/10*268 874  70    0*269 866  70    0*271 861  70    0*273 854  70    0
00265 09/10*268 874  70    0*269 866  70    0*271 861  70    0*273 856  70    0
                                                                   ***

00270 09/11*274 846  70    0*276 838  70    0*278 828  70    0*284 816  60    0
00270 09/11*275 851  70    0*277 846  70    0*278 840  70    0*279 834  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***              ***          *** ***  **

00275 09/12*289 805  50    0*295 793  60    0*302 778  70    0*310 765  70    0
00275 09/12*280 828  70    0*281 822  60    0*282 815  50    0*285 805  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

00280 09/13*318 750  60    0*325 735  60    0*333 721  50    0*342 706  50    0
00280 09/13*292 790  60    0*304 770  70    0*320 745  70    0*340 715  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

00285 HRBFL1


U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
3-9/11/1852$   1200Z 27.8N  82.8W   70kt  1     (985mb)   BFL1
3-9/12/1852$   0000Z 28.0N  82.8W   70kt  1     (985mb)   BFL1
    **         ****  ****                    

Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami uncovered the following
observations from the historic Army Surgeon weather archives from the
Florida fort data: 

Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W):
Date      Sunrise   13Z    19Z    01Z
9/11/1852  NE-1    NE-1   NE-1   NE-1  .55" showers and violent storm
                                       during the night
9/12/1852   W-8     W-6   NE-1   NE-1

Military Post Wind Force Scale
(values are estimates of the highest gusts)
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze  2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze      4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze      12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze     25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze       35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale              45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale       60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale      75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane         90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent    100 mph (87 kt)

These observations indicate that while the track of the hurricane
and its intensity are reasonable, the track of the hurricane's passage
across Florida was about 12 hours too early.  Such a discrepancy
is not implausible, given the relative scarce and ambiguous data 
obtained in the original Partagas and Diaz (1995a) study.  Track
and intensity values adjusted accordingly from the 10th to the
14th.

1852/03 - 2011 REVISION:

00285 09/09/1852 M= 5  3 SNBR=   9 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
00290 09/09*264 904  70    0*265 896  70    0*266 888  70    0*266 881  70    0*
00295 09/10*268 874  70    0*269 866  70    0*271 861  70    0*273 856  70    0*
00300 09/11*275 851  70    0*277 846  70    0*278 840  70    0*279 834  70    0*
00305 09/12*280 828  70    0*281 822  60    0*282 815  50    0*285 805  50    0*
00310 09/13*292 790  60    0*304 770  70    0*320 745  70    0*340 715  70    0*
00315 HRBFL1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
3-9/12/1852    0000Z 28.0N  82.8W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   BFL1
3-9/12/1852    0000Z 28.0N  82.8W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   BFL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for an 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1852/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status from multiple ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1852/05:  Added an additional day - Oct. 11th - to track based upon ship
"Peerless" in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) writeup.  Inland winds over SE US 
reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model.  Storm tide value
of 7' obtained from Ludlum (1963) and Barnes (1998) for Newport, Florida.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction
in Jamaica, conditions from the ship "Hebe" and damage that occurred in
Newport.  Storm also known in Ludlum as the "Middle Florida Storm of
October 1852".


1852/05 - 2006 REVISION:
                            
00375 10/06/1852 M= 6  5 SNBR=  11 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                    L
00380 10/06*170 738  90    0*171 750  90    0*172 763  90    0*172 778  90    0*
00385 10/07*177 796  90    0*182 815  90    0*187 831  90    0*195 844  90    0*
00390 10/08*204 855  90    0*212 864  90    0*224 869  90    0*240 868  90    0*
00395 10/09*256 864  90    0*269 859  90    0*280 855  90    0*292 849  90    0*
00400 10/10*305 839  80    0*318 828  60    0*330 811  50    0*340 795  50    0*
00405 10/11*350 770  50    0*360 740  50    0*380 700  60    0*400 660  60    0*
00410 HRAFL2 GA1                                                                
00410 HRAFL2IGA1                                                                
            ****

Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's 
Atlantic coast.

1852/06 - 2011 REVISION:

00375 10/06/1852 M= 6  5 SNBR=  11 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                    L
00380 10/06*170 738  90    0*171 750  90    0*172 763  90    0*172 778  90    0*
00385 10/07*177 796  90    0*182 815  90    0*187 831  90    0*195 844  90    0*
00390 10/08*204 855  90    0*212 864  90    0*224 869  90    0*240 868  90    0*
00395 10/09*256 864  90    0*269 859  90    0*280 855  90    0*292 849  90    0*
00400 10/10*305 839  80    0*318 828  60    0*330 811  50    0*340 795  50    0*
00405 10/11*350 770  50    0*360 740  50    0*380 700  60    0*400 660  60    0*
00410 HRAFL2IGA1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
5-10/9/1852    2100Z 29.9N  84.4W   90kt  2    ---   (969mb)   AFL2,IGA1
5-10/9/1852    2100Z 29.9N  84.4W   90kt  2    ---   (965mb)   AFL2,IGA1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 90 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb - 
for an 90 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1853/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************

1853/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point.

********************************************************************************

1853/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Central pressure measurement of 924 mb with the southern wind-pressure 
relationship gives 132 kt - 130 kt utilized, a major hurricane.  Ludlum
(1963) named this system the "Cape Verde and Cape Hatteras Hurricane
(offshore)".

********************************************************************************

1853/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached major hurricane status from observations
taken from the ships "Gilbert Gallatin", "Harvester Queen" and "Chesapeake".

********************************************************************************

1853/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point.

********************************************************************************


1853/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
ships "Samuel and Edward" and "Werada".

********************************************************************************

1853/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point.

********************************************************************************

1853/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm 
assumed to be stationary for 2 days.  Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon several ship reports.

1853/08 - REVISION:

00565 10/19/1853 M= 2  8 SNBR=  18 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
00565 10/19/1853 M= 4  8 SNBR=  19 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                    *           **                  *     *

00570 10/19*275 785  70    0*275 785  70    0*275 785  70    0*275 785  70    0
00570 10/19*275 785  70    0*280 789  70    0*285 793  80    0*289 796  80    0
                             *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

00575 10/20*275 785  70    0*275 785  70    0*275 785  70    0*275 785  70    0
00575 10/20*293 799  80    0*297 802  80    0*300 805  90    0*303 807  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(The 21st and 22nd are new to HURDAT.)
00577 10/21*306 809  90    0*309 809  90    0*313 806  80    0*317 801  80    0
00579 10/22*321 794  80    0*325 785  80    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0

00580 HR  
00580 HR GA1
         ***

Analysis of historical tropical storms and hurricanes impacting Georgia and
Northeast Florida by Sandrik (2001) shows that the hurricane moved northward
to just offshore Georgia and caused hurricane conditions along the Georgia
coast.  This was based upon ship reports and wind reports from Jacksonville,
Brunswick and Charleston.  (The hurricane was previously listed as being
stationary for two days.)



1853/08 - 2006 REVISION:

00610 10/19/1853 M= 4  8 SNBR=  19 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                    L
00610 10/19/1853 M= 4  8 SNBR=  19 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=1                    L
                                                    *

00615 10/19*275 785  70    0*280 789  70    0*285 793  80    0*289 796  80    0*
00620 10/20*293 799  80    0*297 802  80    0*300 805  90    0*303 807  90    0*
00625 10/21*306 809  90    0*309 809  90    0*313 806  80    0*317 801  80    0*
00630 10/22*321 794  80    0*325 785  80    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
00635 HR GA1                                                                    

As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did
cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental
U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0".


********************************************************************************

1853 - Additional Notes:
1.  The tropical storm listed as #9 in 1853 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm 
did not actually exist.  Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference 
to it in Garcia-Bonnelly (1958), but no other information.

********************************************************************************

1854/01 - 2004 ADDITION:

00621 06/25/1854 M= 3  1 SNBR=  20 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
00622 06/25*260 925  60    0*260 930  60    0*260 935  70    0*260 940  70    0
00623 06/26*260 947  70    0*261 957  70    0*262 970  70    0*264 985  50    0
00624 06/27*2681000  40    0*2741015  40    0*2801030  40    0*  0   0   0    0
00624 HRATX1 

Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina and Mr. David Roth of
the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center found evidence of a newly uncovered 
hurricane that made landfall in southern Texas from Army Fort data and 
historical newspaper accounts.  (The Army Forts observed the weather four 
times a day between sunrise and sunset.  Winds could range from a range of 
1 to 10, with a 6 being equivalent to about 40 kt gusts, a 7 about 50 kt 
gusts and an 8 about 65 kt gusts.)

Fort Brown (Brownsville, Texas):
Jun. 25, 1854 - E2   NE3  NW2  NW3  78/79/84/77  3 1/2 am rain 0.79" Showers
Jun. 26, 1854 - W4   W5   W3   SW2  76/76/76/80  11 pm to 6pm rain 5.65" Storm
Jun. 27, 1854 - SW1  SW2  W1   SW1  78/84/86/81  Light showers
Barometer (altitude 50 ft - surface pressure values)
Jun. 25, 1854 - 30.08  30.08  30.05  30.02
Jun. 26, 1854 - 29.75  29.82  29.96  30.04
Jun. 27, 1854 - 30.08  30.10  30.18  30.26

Corpus Christi, Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - N2   N3   N4   N7   79/80/83/80  0.70" rain
Jun. 26, 1854 - E7   E7   E8   E8   80/80/81/80  0.50" rain
Jun. 27, 1854 - SE4  SE4  SE3  SE3  80/84/84/83

Fort Ringgold (26.4N, 99.3W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - N2   N2   N4   N4   75/86/84/84  Rain 8a.m.-5p.m. 0.73"
Jun. 26, 1854 - NW2  NW4  W4   S3   75/77/76/74  Rain 3a.m.-2a.m. (27th) 5.05"
Jun. 27, 1854 - S1   S3   S3   S3   72/76/84/78  Rain 9a.m.-6p.m. 0.85"
Barometer (altitude ~200 ft - surface pressure values)
Jun. 25, 1854 - 29.87  29.89  29.80  29.81
Jun. 26, 1854 - 29.67  29.60  29.40  29.80
Jun. 27, 1854 - 29.91  29.95  29.95  29.96
Note on 27th:  Showers.  Distant thunder S. and S.W. during day.

Fort McIntosh (27.5N, 99.5W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - NE1  NE2  NE3  NE2  76/82/88/79
Jun. 26, 1854 - SW2  N3   NE4  SE5  74/78/76/74  0.20" 
Jun. 27, 1854 - SE2  SE2  E1   E1   72/79/75/76  0.70"
Note on 25th:  Rain at intervals during the day
Note on 26th:  Rain at intervals from 11 o'clock a.m. until 8 p.m.

Fort Duncan (28.7N, 100.5W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - SE2  SE2  SE3  SE2  75/83/93/81
Jun. 26, 1854 - SE1  SE3  SE3  SE2  75/82/89/77  0.20"
Jun. 27, 1854 - SE2  SE2  SE2  SE2  75/78/82/77  Rain 6 1/2a.m.-3p.m. 0.14"
Note on 25th:  Rain at intervals
Note on 26th:  Rain at intervals and moderate during the day
Note on 27th:  Rain at intervals and moderate during the day

Fort Ewell (28.2N, 99.0W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - NW1  NW2  N3   N1   74/83/94/77  Rain 5a.m.-7p.m. 0.73" 
Jun. 26, 1854 - N4   N4   N2   SE0  75/76/78/72  Rain 1 1/2a.m-2a.m.  0.40"
Jun. 27, 1854 - SE3  SE4  SE3  SE2  73/80/90/77  

The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 2, 1854, p.2
The Galveston News, of the 27th ult., has these items:...
   The wind commenced blowing very strong from the eastward on Saturday
   last [24th], and has continued since, sometimes almost a gale.  It
   caused a slight overflow of the strand yesterday and day before.  It
   has been accompanied with occasional showers, and with some very
   severe thunder and lightning.

The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 2, 1854, p.2
FROM BRAZOS SANTIAGO [26.1N, 97.2W] - Severe Storm - 
By the arrival of the steamship Perseverance, Capt. John Y. Lawless, 
yesterday, we are placed in possession of intelligence from that place
to the 27th ult.
On Sunday last, the 25th of June, we learn that the city was visited by
a very severe storm, which caused a great deal of damage and caused yet
more disastrous consequence.  The wind was higher than it had ever been
experienced since the establishment of the city, blowing, in fact, a
perfect hurricane from the S.S.E., and at the same time very heavy rain
fell.  Many buildings were unroofed and otherwise damaged, while some 
were completely turned round.  The large cistern belong to the U.S.
Quartermaster's Department, and which contained 2,000 gallons of water,
was destroyed.  Several boats employed between Point Isabel and Brazos
were driven ashore, and some sank; and at one time the greatest fears
were entertained that the partial deluge of the island actually 
experienced, would extend to a complete and disastrous overflow.

The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 5, 1854, p.1
By the steamship Louisiana, which arrived here from Galveston, this 
morning, we have advices from that city and Houston to the 2d inst. ...
The Lavaca Commercial, of the 28th, says:
   We were visited by another terrible gale last evening, from the south-
   east.  The wind commenced blowing last evening, and continued all
   night, accompanied by heavy falls of rain.  The tide is very high - 
   several bath houses have been washed away, and some little damage has
   been done to the whaves.  

The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 12, 1854, p.1
The Nueces Valley, of the 1st inst., has the following:
   Our sea board was visited on Saturday last with one of the most
   tremendous gales that has ever been known of this coast.  It commenced
   blowing severely on Saturday evening, the 24th ult., and continued,
   accompanied with rain until Tuesday morning, when the storm abated.  
   Some little damage was done to the shipping in this harbor, but not in
   proportion of the violence of the storm.
   We are informed that the current was driven into Aransas Bay through 
   the Pass, at the rate of ten or twelve knots per hours.  It was with
   difficulty that the vessels at anchorage in Aransas harbor could hold 
   on...It is said that Aransas Bar is much improved by the storm, being
   increased both in depth and width.    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These observations indicate a tropical cyclone of about Category 1 hurricane
conditions (70 kt) made landfall around 12 UTC on the 26th north of
Brownsville, just north of Brazos Santiago, Texas.  The system then passed 
north of Fort Ringgold around 20 UTC on the 26th.  The sea level pressure
at that fort was a minimum of about 1002 mb at that time.  1002 mb suggests
winds of at least 41 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure 
relationship, though this would be for an over open water exposure.  Winds
are estimated to be about 50 kt at 18 UTC on the 26th.  The system then 
passed west of Fort McIntosh around 00 UTC on the 27th and then is estimated 
to have dissipated by about 12 UTC on the 27th.  Intensity at landfall is 
based primarily upon impacts of the system at Brazos Santiago.  A search of 
the COADS ship database did not reveal any observations in the Gulf of 
Mexico near this storm.

1854/01 - 2011 REVISION:

00640 06/25/1854 M= 3  1 SNBR=  20 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
00645 06/25*260 925  60    0*260 930  60    0*260 935  70    0*260 940  70    0*
00650 06/26*260 947  70    0*261 957  70    0*262 970  70    0*264 985  50    0*
00655 06/27*2681000  40    0*2741015  40    0*2801030  40    0*  0   0   0    0*
00660 HRATX1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-6/26/1854    1200Z 26.2N  97.2W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   ATX1
1-6/26/1854    1200Z 26.2N  97.2W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   ATX1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1854/02: (Was originally storm 1854/01 in Partagas and Diaz - May 2004 change).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  

********************************************************************************

1854/03: (Was originally storm 1854/02 in Partagas and Diaz - May 2004 change).
Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and 
Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US.  
Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay 
model, though not as fast as suggested with this model due to extreme
duration of damaging winds along Georgia and South Carolina.  Ship with 
central pressures observation of 938 mb gives with subtropical latitude
wind-pressure relationship a 112 kt reading - utilizing 110 kt.  Peripheral
pressure reading of 973 mb (at 20 UTC on the 8th of September in Savannah,
Georgia) suggest winds of at least 83 kt utilizing the same subtropical 
wind-pressure relationship.  Ho used this value with other information to
estimate a 950 mb central pressure at landfall which gives 103 kt again from
the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - here we are choosing 100 kt for
the best track.  Both reports (of 938 mb and 950 mb) suggest that the storm 
reached major hurricane status over the Atlantic.  The storm is determined to 
have reintensified to hurricane status after moving back over the Atlantic 
Ocean after landfall.  Have also adjusted track to the north by about 60 nmi 
as the hurricane returned to the Atlantic to better match observed strong 
gales over Northeastern U.S. The storm is named in Ludlum's (1963) book as 
the "Great Carolina Hurricane of 1854" for its impacts in the Carolinas and 
the "Coastal Hurricane of September 1854" for its impacts in the Middle 
Atlantic and New England coasts. 


1854/03 - 2003 REVISION:

00600 09/07/1854 M= 6  2 SNBR=  20 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
00600 09/07/1854 M= 6  2 SNBR=  21 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                                **

00605 09/07*264 766 110    0*272 776 110    0*280 786 110  938*288 796 110    0
00610 09/08*296 803 110    0*304 806 110    0*311 809 100    0*316 811 100  950
00615 09/09*320 813  80    0*325 815  70    0*332 815  60    0*343 805  50    0
00620 09/10*355 781  40    0*368 759  40    0*378 740  50    0*384 719  60    0
00625 09/11*388 695  70    0*390 673  80    0*394 650  90    0*395 618  90    0
00630 09/12*398 583  90    0*400 551  90    0*400 520  80    0*402 480  80    0
00635 HR GA3 SC2 
00635 HR GA3 SC2DFL1
                ****  

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
2-9/8/1854     2000Z 31.7N  81.1W  100kt  3      950mb     GA3,SC2
2-9/8/1854     2000Z 31.7N  81.1W  100kt  3      950mb     GA3,SC2,DFL1
                                                                   ****

Analysis of historical tropical storms and hurricanes impacting Georgia and
Northeast Florida by Sandrik (2001) suggests that the hurricane had also
impacted Northeast Florida with Category 1 hurricane conditions as well in
its landfall in Georgia.

********************************************************************************

1854/04: (Was originally storm 1854/03 in Partagas and Diaz - May 2004 change).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis for track. 
Inland winds over Texas reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay 
model.  The storm is determined to reach hurricane status based upon
damage that occurred in Matagorda.  Storm is known in Ludlum's (1963)
work as the "Matagorda Hurricane of 1854".  

1854/04 - 2011 REVISION:

00720 09/18/1854 M= 3  4 SNBR=  23 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
00725 09/18*282 936  90    0*284 941  90    0*286 946  90    0*288 951  90    0*
00730 09/19*290 956  80    0*292 961  70    0*294 965  60    0*297 966  60    0*
00735 09/20*300 964  50    0*303 960  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
00740 HRBTX2                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-9/18/1854    2100Z 28.9N  95.3W   90kt  2    ---   (969mb)   BTX2
4-9/18/1854    2100Z 28.9N  95.3W   90kt  2    ---   (965mb)   BTX2
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 90 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb - 
for a 90 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1854 - Additional Notes:
1.  The tropical storm listed as #4 in 1854 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm 
did not actually exist.  Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported 
reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but it is likely that this reference 
was really referring to storm 1854/03 which hit the coast at the same exact 
location.

********************************************************************************

1854/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  

********************************************************************************


1855/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point.  Storm determined to have been a hurricane
based upon destruction in Tampico.

********************************************************************************


1855/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
determined to have reached hurricane status from multiple ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1855/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point.  Storm determined to have reached hurricane 
status from the ship "Walverine".

********************************************************************************

1855/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Utilized the southern wind-pressure relationship for ship with central
pressure observation of 997 mb to get 53 kt, using 50 kt in best track.
Review of this storm in conjunction with the 1855/05 hurricane reveals
that they may be the same system.  However, without more supporting
evidence for the intervening days (of August 28-30) between the 
systems, we are opting to keep these as separate storms.

********************************************************************************

1855/05 - 2000 ORIGINAL:  

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis for 
track.  Ludlum (1963) describes that "the tide at places between Lake
Ponchartrain and Bay St. Louis was said to have risen ten to fifteen
feet above normal high tide."  Storm determined to have reached major
hurricane status at landfall based upon storm tide and destruction along
Louisiana and Mississippi.  Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and 
DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model.  Hurricane known as the "Middle Gulf
Shore Hurricane of 1855" (Ludlum 1963).  (Note that this storm was originally
labeled 1855/06 in the 2000 version of HURDAT.  It was renumbered in 
2003 because of the removal of storm 1855/05.)


1855/05 - 2004 REVISION:

00810 09/15/1855 M= 3  5 SNBR=  28 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
00810 09/15/1855 M= 3  5 SNBR=  29 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                                **

00815 09/15*267 891  70    0*271 891  80    0*275 893  90    0*281 894 100    0
00820 09/16*288 895 110    0*296 895 100    0*302 894  90    0*310 891  60    0
00820 09/16*288 895 110    0*296 895 110    0*302 894 100    0*310 891  70    0
                                     ***              ***               **

00825 09/17*320 888  50    0*330 883  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
00830 HR LA3 MS3

After a thorough review of all U.S. landfalling hurricanes for the 1851 to 
1910 period by Dickinson et al. (2004 and pers. comm.) using their
numerical analysis and modeling system, two hurricanes were found to have 
inconsistencies between the assigned Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and the 
estimated maximum 1-min surface winds:  1855/05 and 1878/05.  In this case, 
the Category 3 impact assigned for Mississippi was not consistent with the 
original 12 UTC winds for this hurricane of 90 kt, while just offshore of the 
Mississippi coast.  The original intensity for this system was based 
primarily upon the storm tide amount both in Louisiana and Mississippi (see 
above) and it was intended to analyze this hurricane as a Category 3 in 
both states.  Thus the winds have been boosted up to 100 kt at the 12 UTC time 
to retain the Category 3 assignment for Mississippi.  Again utilizing the 
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model after landfall in Mississippi 
suggests increasing the 18 UTC winds up to 70 kt.

1855/05 - 2011 REVISION:

00850 09/15/1855 M= 3  5 SNBR=  29 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                    L
00855 09/15*267 891  70    0*271 891  80    0*275 893  90    0*281 894 100    0*
00860 09/16*288 895 110    0*296 895 110    0*302 894 100    0*310 891  70    0*
00865 09/17*320 888  50    0*330 883  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
00870 HR LA3 MS3                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
5-9/16/1855    0300Z 29.2N  89.5W  110kt  3    ---   (950mb)   LA3,MS3
5-9/16/1855    0300Z 29.2N  89.5W  110kt  3    ---   (945mb)   LA3,MS3
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi as a 110 kt hurricane.  This suggested a 
central pressure at landfall of 950 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 945 mb - 
for a 110 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

******************************************************************************

1855 - Additional Notes:

1855/05 - 2003 REVISION:  STORM REMOVED FROM HURDAT.

1855/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm 
determined to have reached hurricane status from observations from ships 
"Catherine" and "Rebecca".  Review of this hurricane in conjunction with 
the 1855/04 tropical storm reveals that they may be the same system.  
However, without more supporting evidence for the intervening days (of 
August 28-30) between the systems, we are opting to keep these as separate 
storms.

00770 08/31/1855 M= 3  5 SNBR=  27 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
00775 08/31*414 675  70    0*424 650  70    0*434 620  70    0*445 588  70    0
00780 09/01*455 551  70    0*465 514  70    0*475 472  70    0*484 445  70    0
00785 09/02*495 414  60    0*505 384  60    0E513 355  50    0E522 330  50    0
00790 HR  
(System removed from revised HURDAT.)

This hurricane is, with additional information, shown instead to be
a strong extratropical storm with well-defined baroclinic structure.
New data sources were provided by Michael Chenoweth for Sable Island and 
Halifax, Canada and by Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina 
for Bridgeport, Massachusetts.  This tropical cyclone is thus removed from 
the HURDAT database.  Details about these new data sources are provided in 
full below.
 
The two Canadian sources are (1) a weather diary kept by Alexander Muirson 
at Halifax, 1828-1860 and (2) a daily record of occurrences at the "Principal 
Station" on Sable Island, Nova Scotia from 1853-1855. The first is a 'pure'
meteorological register, with instrumental temperature and barometer data; the 
second is what appears to be some type of government or corporate record of 
activity at a fishing station.  Weather is recorded daily, but is only 
non-instrumental. Both records were obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the 
Provincial Archives of Nova Scotia, Halifax.

Sable Island Observations:
30 August 1855
   First part moderate SE winds and clear....Latter part strong
   north winds and cloudy weather.
31 August 1855
   A heavy northwardly blow throughout.
1 September 1855
   Moderate WSW winds and clear weather.
The terminology of the time units suggests that the record is
kept by a mariner. However, the dates appear to be civil calendar
dates (midnight-midnight) and not the seaman's day of noon to noon. This
assessment is based on a scan of other day's records in the diary.

Halifax Observations:
Temperature and barometer are labeled M, N, E (morning, noon,
evening). Winds are "prevailing". Remarks give prevailing weather
conditions and register (without specifying the time usually)
a change to another prevailing weather type. Temperature and
barometer readings are most likely read at 0800, 1300-1400, and
2200 based on analysis of hourly means. Muirson never states
the morning and evening times but states once in his journal
that his mid-day reading was between 1 and 2 P.M. His thermometer also has
an eastern exposure and there is evidence for sunlight reaching the
thermometer as his morning readings in the summer are higher than his
evening reading. Muirson's barometer during the summer and early autumn
rarely exceeds 29.9 inches. Without knowing the details of his location,
cannot assume an elevation but the barometer appears not to have been
calibrated. He did routinely record the names of ships arriving in port.

Date          Temp (F)   Pressure (")     Winds       Description
29 Aug. 1855  56 70 60  29.8 29.7 29.5   changeable  Clear very fine, this 
                                                     morning a white frost
30 Aug. 1855  72 64 42  29.4 29.5 29.6   SW to NW    Cloudy & windy -- 
                                                     clear & cool
31 Aug. 1855  50 64 44  29.7 29.8 29.9   N           Clear & fine, 
                                                     frost last night
 1 Sep. 1855  53 57 56  30.0 29.9 29.7   SW          Cloudy, frost last night --
                                                     heavy rain

Massachusetts Observations:
Prof. Cary Mock provided the following additional information regarding 
this system:  Leonard Hill's Meteorological Register.  Hill kept a weather 
diary at Bridgewater, MA (42.0N, 71.0W). For the dates of interest, he
recorded the following:
        Aug. 29. Clear, cool.
        Aug. 30. Clear, cool N
        Aug. 31. Frost - killed beans, &c
        Sept. 1. Rain. S.W. & S.
This early freeze helps to confirm the analysis of a strong
extratropical storm system as was also observed in the Sable Island
and Halifax observations.  Prof. Mock also checked his records from
the Carolinas, which showed no storm system (tropical or otherwise)
moving up from the south near or over the mid-Atlantic coast.

********************************************************************************



1856/01:  Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and 
Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US.  
Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay 
model.  Ship with pressure measurement of 955 mb not in the hurricane's
eye suggests at least 105 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure 
relationship, utilize 130 kt in best track.  Ho's estimate of 934 mb at 
landfall gives 125 kt, utilize 130 kt in best track - a major hurricane.  
A small RMW of 12 nmi supports slight increase of winds over suggested 
wind-pressure relationship.  Storm tide value of 11-12' provided by Ludlum 
(1963) for Last Island, Louisiana.  The storm is also known as the "Last 
Island Disaster" after the destruction caused at that location.

********************************************************************************

1856/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction felt in
Grenada and Barbados.

********************************************************************************

1856/03:  This storm was not identified by Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) 
analysis.  Enough evidence was retrieved from Ludlum's (1963) analysis 
(see pages 99 and 100) to provide track and intensity estimates.  Note
that the track provided here keeps the tropical storm's center offshore
of New England, which disagrees with Ludlum's assessment.  This is due to 
all wind reports from New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and - especially 
- Massachusetts which remained at an easterly component for the duration of 
this storm.  If, as Ludlum suggested, the storm crossed the neck of Cape Cod, 
there would have been a wind shift to a westerly component at Cape Cod and/or 
Nantucket.  Both remained easterly, thus suggesting a just-offshore track. 
Ludlum referred to this storm as the "Charter Oak Storm of August 1856" for 
the destruction of the famous Charter Oak that was a witness to the founding
of the Connecticut Colony in 1636.

********************************************************************************

1856/04:  This storm was listed as #3 in 1856 originally in Partagas and
Diaz (1995a).  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  

********************************************************************************

1856/05:  This storm was listed as #4 in 1856 originally in Partagas and
Diaz (1995a).  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) 
analysis for track. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's 
(1995) inland decay model.  Storm tide value of 6' obtained from Barnes (1998) 
for Apalachicola, Florida.  Havana's central pressure observation of 969 mb 
gives 90 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, which is used 
directly.  Pressure reading of 968 mb not in hurricane's center (on 18 UTC 
of the 30th of August) suggests winds of at least 91 kt from the Gulf of 
Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt is chosen for best track.  This
last reading supports that this storm reached major hurricane status, but
likely weakened slightly before making landfall in the United States.  Ludlum
(1963) referred to this storm as the "Southeastern States Hurricane of
1856".

1856/05 - 2003 REVISION:

00910 08/25/1856 M=10  5 SNBR=  33 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
00915 08/25*210 698  70    0*210 708  70    0*211 719  70    0*212 728  70    0
00920 08/26*216 739  70    0*217 748  70    0*220 759  80    0*222 766  80    0
00925 08/27*224 776  80    0*226 786  80    0*227 795  90    0*227 806  90    0
00925 08/27*224 776  80    0*226 786  80    0*227 795  90    0*227 806  80    0
                                                                        **

00930 08/28*229 816  90  969*230 829  90    0*232 840  90    0*236 846  90    0
00930 08/28*229 816  80    0*230 829  90  969*232 840  90    0*236 846  90    0
                     **  ***              ***

00935 08/29*239 851  90    0*242 856  90    0*247 864  90    0*249 868  90    0
00940 08/30*252 871 100    0*256 873 100    0*262 874 100    0*275 873 100    0
00945 08/31*289 866  90    0*302 859  90    0*311 848  70    0*322 833  60    0
00950 09/01*330 816  50    0*340 796  50    0*347 779  50    0*355 753  50    0
00955 09/02*363 728  50    0*368 700  50    0*372 673  50    0*377 646  50    0
00960 09/03*382 618  50    0*388 586  50    0*390 560  50    0*395 523  50    0
00965 HRAFL2 AL1 GA1

Re-analysis effort by meteorologists in Cuba (Perez 2000) confirms 
landfall as Category 2 hurricane (90 kt).  However, winds reduced after
landfall in Cuba until center re-emerges off of the coast.  Central
pressure of 969 mb in Havana corrected from 00Z to a 06Z value.


1856/05 - 2006 REVISION:
                            
00965 08/25/1856 M=10  5 SNBR=  34 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
00970 08/25*210 698  70    0*210 708  70    0*211 719  70    0*212 728  70    0*
00975 08/26*216 739  70    0*217 748  70    0*220 759  80    0*222 766  80    0*
00980 08/27*224 776  80    0*226 786  80    0*227 795  90    0*227 806  80    0*
00985 08/28*229 816  80    0*230 829  90  969*232 840  90    0*236 846  90    0*
00990 08/29*239 851  90    0*242 856  90    0*247 864  90    0*249 868  90    0*
00995 08/30*252 871 100    0*256 873 100    0*262 874 100    0*275 873 100    0*
01000 08/31*289 866  90    0*302 859  90    0*311 848  70    0*322 833  60    0*
01005 09/01*330 816  50    0*340 796  50    0*347 779  50    0*355 753  50    0*
01010 09/02*363 728  50    0*368 700  50    0*372 673  50    0*377 646  50    0*
01015 09/03*382 618  50    0*388 586  50    0*390 560  50    0*395 523  50    0*
01020 HRAFL2 AL1 GA1                                                            
01020 HRAFL2IAL1IGA1                                                            
            ********

Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
and Alabama hurricane impacts from this cyclone were inland, rather than 
along either states' coastal region.

1856/05 - 2011 REVISION:

00965 08/25/1856 M=10  5 SNBR=  34 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
00970 08/25*210 698  70    0*210 708  70    0*211 719  70    0*212 728  70    0*
00975 08/26*216 739  70    0*217 748  70    0*220 759  80    0*222 766  80    0*
00980 08/27*224 776  80    0*226 786  80    0*227 795  90    0*227 806  80    0*
00985 08/28*229 816  80    0*230 829  90  969*232 840  90    0*236 846  90    0*
00990 08/29*239 851  90    0*242 856  90    0*247 864  90    0*249 868  90    0*
00995 08/30*252 871 100    0*256 873 100    0*262 874 100    0*275 873 100    0*
01000 08/31*289 866  90    0*302 859  90    0*311 848  70    0*322 833  60    0*
01005 09/01*330 816  50    0*340 796  50    0*347 779  50    0*355 753  50    0*
01010 09/02*363 728  50    0*368 700  50    0*372 673  50    0*377 646  50    0*
01015 09/03*382 618  50    0*388 586  50    0*390 560  50    0*395 523  50    0*
01020 HRAFL2IAL1IGA1                                                            

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
5-8/31/1856    0600Z 30.2N  85.9W   90kt  2    ---   (969mb)   AFL2,IAL1,IGA1
5-8/31/1856    0600Z 30.2N  85.9W   90kt  2    ---   (965mb)   AFL2,IAL1,IGA1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 90 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb - 
for a 90 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1856/06:  No major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm 
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the 
ship "Utah".

1856/06 - 2003 REVISION:

00970 09/18/1856 M= 5  6 SNBR=  34 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
00975 09/18*320 488  50    0*325 489  50    0*329 490  50    0*335 493  50    0
00980 09/19*345 498  60    0*352 505  60    0*357 512  70    0*358 514  70    0
00980 09/19*345 498  60    0*352 505  60    0*356 510  70    0*358 514  70    0
                                              *** ***

00985 09/20*360 517  70    0*360 520  70    0*362 523  70    0*363 524  70    0
00985 09/20*360 517  70    0*361 520  70    0*362 523  70    0*363 524  70    0
                             ***

00990 09/21*364 525  60    0*365 526  60    0*365 527  60    0*365 528  60    0
00995 09/22*365 529  60    0*365 530  60    0*365 530  60    0*365 530  60    0
01000 HR

Track altered slightly for a more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************

1856 - Additional Notes:
1.  The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1856 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm 
did not actually exist.  Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference 
to it in Dunn and Miller (1960), but it is likely that this reference was 
really referring to storm 1856/04 which hit the coast at the same exact 
location.

********************************************************************************

1857/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  

********************************************************************************


1857/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Ship with central pressure observation of 961 mb gives 94 kt with the 
subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship, utilizing 90 kt in best
track - supporting hurricane status.  Storm is known in Ludlum's (1963)
work as the "Central America Disaster in 1857" due to the loss of
the ship the "S.S. Central America".

1857/02 - 2011 REVISION:

01080 09/09/1857 M= 8  2 SNBR=  37 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1 
01080 09/06/1857 M=13  2 SNBR=  37 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2 
                   **                                     *
(The 6th through the 8th are new to HURDAT.)
01082 09/06*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*265 730  40    0*
01083 09/07*267 728  40    0*269 726  40    0*272 724  50    0*275 723  50    0*
01084 09/08*277 725  50    0*279 727  50    0*281 729  60    0*283 730  60    0* 

01085 09/09*252 676  50    0*256 686  50    0*260 696  50    0*266 706  50    0*
01085 09/09*287 736  60    0*291 742  70    0*295 747  70    0*302 758  70    0*
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **        

01090 09/10*272 716  60    0*277 726  60    0*283 736  70    0*289 746  70    0*
01090 09/10*302 758  70    0*305 762  70    0*307 767  80    0*310 771  80    0*
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

01095 09/11*296 753  70    0*303 761  70    0*310 768  80    0*314 774  80    0*
01095 09/11*312 774  90    0*315 777  90    0*317 780  90    0*321 782  90    0*
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

01100 09/12*318 776  80    0*322 779  80    0*325 779  90    0*330 776  90  961*
01100 09/12*323 782  90    0*325 783  90    0*328 783  90    0*333 783  90  961*
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** *** 

01105 09/13*338 771  90    0*345 763  90    0*354 755  90    0*360 748  90    0*
01105 09/13*339 780  90    0*345 775  80    0*349 771  70    0*355 765  60    0*
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

01110 09/14*365 740  90    0*369 731  90    0*373 720  80    0*377 705  80    0*
01110 09/14*360 762  50    0*363 758  50    0*365 749  50    0*368 735  60    0*
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

01115 09/15*380 691  80    0*383 676  80    0*388 661  80    0*395 636  80    0*
01115 09/15*376 718  60    0*385 698  70    0*394 676  80    0*403 652  80    0*
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  

01120 09/16*403 612  70    0*410 590  70    0*417 567  70    0*425 542  70    0*
01120 09/16*412 617  80    0*421 589  80    0*430 560  80    0*440 530  80  972*
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  ***

(The 17th and 18th are new to HURDAT.)

01122 09/17*450 500  80    0*460 460  70    0*470 420  60    0E480 380  50    0*
01124 09/18E490 340  40    0E500 300  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*

01125 HR NC1  
01125 HR NC2
         ***

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
2-9/13/1857    1100Z 35.2N  75.7W   80kt  1    ---    961mb    NC1
2-9/13/1857    0000Z 33.9N  78.0W   90kt  2    ---    961mb    NC2
               ****  ****   ****    **    *                    ***

Highlights:
This storm has a new start point based on daily weather maps and correction of 
a Spanish ship longitude. The storm is now shown to have made a landfall across 
inland eastern North Carolina and not along the Outer Banks. Saffir-Simpson 
Category 2 is considered to be the landfall strength although the storm 
off-shore was very near Category 3 while near the Frying Pan Shoals.
(Re-analysis of this hurricane was provided by Mike Chenoweth.)

Synoptic Features:
The first days of September featured high pressure over the SE USA and western 
Atlantic inducing a large area of northeasterly winds. This pattern prevailed 
through 4 September with the slow development of a surface trough of low 
pressure between 70 and 75W which, by 5 September, featured a cold front moving 
off the Virginia coast and an incipient area of low pressure east of 
the Bahamas. Surface pressures along the SE US coast peaked on the 5th and then 
slowly fell in the following days. The cold front to the north passed eastward 
over the next three days, but its influence on the storm trajectory seems to 
have been limited. After 7 September, the cold front cleared Bermuda and 
pressure rose throughout the western Atlantic north of 35N and east of about 
70W.  Throughout 5-8 September, persistent northeast winds prevailed from 
Florida to North Carolina. 

Considerable disturbed weather was reported at Ft. Dallas and Ft. Myers and a 
surface low began to form on 5 September near 25.5N 73.5W. At upper levels troughs 
associated with the cold front off the Atlantic coast and the south Florida area 
upper low worked with ridging over the SE US and south and west of Bermuda to 
provide a weak northeast, then northerly steering current on 5-7 September. As 
the ridge to the north and east became established at both the surface and aloft 
from 8 September onward, the steering currents turned the storm towards the US coast. 

The tropical storm moved at a relatively slow rate, generally between 6 and 
8 miles per hour throughout most of its life cycle from east of the Bahamas to 
landfall in North Carolina. This slow movement led to a period of up to 
48 hours of gale force winds in parts of eastern North Carolina. Newspaper 
accounts from North Carolina and ship reports indicate that the hurricane 
reached high category 2, verging on minimal category 3 intensity (Saffir-
Simpson scale) as it slowly approached South Carolina and then turned slowly 
to the north. Intensification over the warm Gulf Stream current is suggested by 
the increased severity of the ship reports from about 30N 78W to 33N 78W.

The hurricane’s slow turn to the north was due, in part, to high pressure 
building over New England briefly on 10-12 September before breaking down on 
13 September as a cold front advanced off-shore. Ahead of this cold front, 
the hurricane gradually accelerated and moved east-northeastward into the North 
Atlantic. The storm, after losing hurricane status after landfall in North 
Carolina, re-intensified to a hurricane and by 16 September had a pressure of 
at least 972 mb. This suggests 80 kt maximum sustained wind from the high
latitude pressure wind relationship, assuming that the observation was a central
pressure value.  The storm became extratropical sometime on 17 or 
18 September northwest of the Azores.

Major Changes from Previous HURDAT:
The start position of this storm is changed due to the recognition that 
the coordinates of the Spanish brig Emilia, cited in Fernandez-Partagas and 
Diaz (1995) is almost certainly based on a Spanish prime meridian and is, 
therefore, located too far to the east. Weather map continuity also did not 
support the ship position of 2833N 6911W. New data from ships to the east of 
the Bahamas, and weather maps, instead indicate formation of an initial 
closed low by mid-day of 5 September and development into a tropical storm
by late on the 6th.

The landfall of the hurricane is now determined to be just east of the city of 
Wilmington during the early evening hours of 12 September. The western eyewall 
may have brushed Cape Fear; at the very least first landfall was east of 
Wilmington and southwest of Holly Ridge, on Onslow Bay. The center of 
the hurricane then passed over the mainland of eastern North Carolina, 
weakening to a tropical storm and crossing back into the Atlantic near or just 
north of modern Corolla, North Carolina. This is a major change from previous 
HURDAT, which had the hurricane center pass close to Cape Hatteras. The Cape 
Henry and greater Norfolk areas of Virginia experienced tropical storm force 
winds but there is no convincing evidence, despite one report from Hampton 
Roads, of hurricane force winds in Virginia. Hurricane intensity at landfall 
in North Carolina was most likely Saffir-Simpson Scale 2. The absence of 
reports of building damage in Wilmington, and only minor building damage in 
Washington and Beaufort suggests that the strongest winds passed over rural 
areas and were probably confined to a small area. The possibility of Saffir 
Simpson Scale 3 winds at landfall cannot be ruled out but no direct evidence 
exists. Strong category 2 intensity is recommended.  (While the original
HURDAT had the hurricane striking the Hatteras area of North Carolina as
a 90 kt 961 mb cyclone, it was analyzed that the peak winds remained offshore
and that the highest impact on land was 80 kt - Category 1.  With the
revised landfall position along mainland North Carolina, the peak winds
likely did impact land, thus the upgrade to Category 2 impact for North
Carolina despite no change to intensity of the cyclone indicated.)

This hurricane re-intensified over the North Atlantic and wind speeds may have 
approached or equaled the strongest winds when previously located near 
the Frying Pan Shoals. The relative absence of ship reports east of 53W 
indicates that the storm probably weakened and became extra-tropical soon after 
passing the 50W meridian.

Compiled and edited by Michael Chenoweth, 29 October 2006
Wilmington Journal, Friday Sept. 19, 1857

"In our last we referred to the gale that had been blowing here for some time. 
On Saturday, at Noon, when we closed our paper, the storm showed no signs of
abatement, but on the contrary, seemed to grow worse as the day wore on. 
The rain descended in heavy sheets, fiercely dashed about by the wind and no
manner of covering appeared adequate to afford protection from the violence; 
even houses that never leaked before leaked on the afternoon and night of 
Saturday.
Some assert that the rain was driven through brick walls---certain it is that 
dampness appeared on the inside of the walls of brick buildings, while every 
crevice and cranny was searched out and found through which the beating rain might 
find an entrance. Under doors, over doors, by the heads of windows, at all manner
of places, possible and impossible, did the wet come in. Between eight or nine 
o'clock and midnight on Saturday, the gale seemed to have reached its height.
Before midnight, it had changed round from Northeast to West, from which last
point it blew with considerable violence and then gradually sunk away.”

“The appearance of things on Sunday morning was striking. It looked as though 
everything that could be blown down, was down. Fences were prostrated in all
directions, and the streets filled with the limbs and bodies of trees up-rooted 
or twisted off. At one point we noticed eight good-sized trees thrown together in a
heap. Hundreds of China trees are no more, and very few Mulberries or Willows are 
left standing. We have heard of only two Oaks blown over, although there 
may be more. The amount of damage one way or another must be very considerable. 
In the aggregate, it must come up to thousands.
What damage has been done out of town we have not yet heard. We learn that the 
embankment of Mr. Green's Mill-pond has been broken through, and that
the Mill is an island.
It is said by those who know, that our town has not been visited by so severe 
a blow since 1837, and it is doubtful if that equaled it in violence and duration. 
The storm does not appear to have extended far inland---no further West of this place 
than Fair Bluff.
“Steamer Spray started down to Smithville on Saturday, got down to Orton, the tiller 
chain snapped like a thread with the force of the waves, and she fell
into the trough without any control, got out all anchors and brought her up straight,
[people remained on the steamer] and when she did ground about 8 o'clock,
the blow had somewhat abated, and she stood up nobly, not starting a plank, or 
leaking a drop after several hours thumping.
We learn that the storm of Friday and Saturday was quite violent throughout this 
section, but the lower part of this county seems to have been in the way of the
butt-end thereof. It was felt however, with more or less force throughout all this 
part of the state. We regret to hear that the damage on the Sound was greater
than we had supposed. The plank road had a small bridge swept away between town 
and the toll house.
We hear that the storm extended as far inland as the upper end of Sampson, but not 
to any destructive effect. The Fayetteville Observer of Monday makes no
mention.
The late gale here lasted fully 48 hours."

Extract of the "Union" newspaper of 16 September published in the Wilmington Journal 
of 19 September 1857
The Late Storm at Newbern
"On Saturday we were enjoying a perfect gale, accompanied by a heavy, drenching rain. 
This continued during the balance of the day, and, in the meantime,
the tide had arisen over the wharves and for a considerable distance in the streets, 
placing the merchants in the vicinity of the water under the necessity of
moving their goods and chattels to their upper store rooms. Turpentine barrels, 
canoes, timber and a heterogeneous mass of &c.'s were drifted into the streets,
where the tide left them.
So far as we can learn there was not much serious damage done here. The shade trees 
and fences were the principal sufferers. A large number of the former
were uprooted and the most of the streets were almost literally covered with limbs 
and leaves. The top part of the bridge at Union Point was carried away. We
noticed that a number of families in the vicinity of Union Point had to be removed in 
canoes to places of safety, as their houses, which were small ones, were
considered to be in serious danger of drifting from their foundations. We understand 
that some of the still-yards faired pretty badly, but nothing was damaged
to any very great extent.
After night on Saturday, the wind hauled around to the South and by morning the tide 
had gone down to its usual depth. The wind, however, continued to blow
very heavy at the South and South-West, and the rain to fall with considerable force 
until late in the day on Sunday. Monday morning presented us with a clear
sky and calm weather."

Additional extracts of newspapers from the Wilmington Journal of 19 September 1857
The Washington N.C. Dispatch of the 18th inst. Says that the damage by the storm at 
Ocracoke Bar was but slight. The packet steamer Wake, Captain
O'Brien from this port for New York, went ashore outside of Ocracoke. The crew is 
reported all saved.

The Dispatch says:
"The tide (at that place) was four feet higher than usual high water. The whole of 
Water Street and a portion of the back of the town was inundated. The damage
done to goods in the stores was but small, as our merchants saw the coming storm 
and prepared for it. The principal loss was in naval stores, and lumber at
the ship yards and steam mills. A large shed and work-shop, belonging to Messrs. 
Myers & Co. and Mr. Ritch, was blown down. The Schr. C.W. Skinner,
lying at the Castle wharf, got on the wharf, but by the exertions of Capt. Cottrell 
and the crews of the Light Boat was got off without damage.
The owners of the distilleries over the river suffered considerable in the loss of 
naval stores and destruction of buildings and fixtures.
The steamer Post Bay made a harbor at South Creek, and returned to Washington in 
safety on Saturday afternoon.
All the vessels in port were anchored in the stream, and rode the storm in safety. 
The schooners and steamboats displayed their lights, and the light-boats lit
their lamps, which threw a lurid glare over the raging river, which, with the howling 
of the wind, the roaring of the water, and the pelting of the rain, presented a
most terrific and awful scene.
On Sunday, all our places of worship were closed, and the church bells were silent, 
but we doubt not that out citizens in the solitude of their dwellings,
worshipped Him who spake in the tempest and ruled the storm."

The Beaufort Journal of the 16th inst. Contains the following particulars relative 
to the disasters at that port and vicinity.
"The wind blew with so much violence as to cause the tide to rise up to the steps of 
the business houses on Front Street, and demolishing every temporary
wharf and building thereon. The Emily and Three Sisters, two small corn vessels 
anchored in the channel near the town were blown---one on Piver's Island and
the other some miles up Core Creek----neither one of which were injured materially. 
In the Banks Channel, where several vessels were anchored, the Schr.
Stanard's ground-tackling having become foul, (her anchors were small and having 
made no preparations for the storm) she drifted against the schooner
Charles McCleese, and causing so much damage that it became necessary for both 
vessels to slip anchors. They drifted on Brant Island, where they both
lodged close together. They are both damaged and full of water, but it is thought 
will be got afloat as soon as unloaded. The Standard is from Wilmington,
bound to Washington City, and loaded with lumber: her cargo will be saved. The 
Chas. MCClees is from the same port, bound to New York, and loaded with
wheat, the greater portion of which is in a damaged condition.
It is feared that there has been quite a number of vessels wrecked on the coast. 
Up to the hour of our going to press, we hear of only two: one of which is a
vessel of about 200 tons burthen, from the West Indies, loaded with logwood and 
coffee, and bound to New York. She is on the farthest extremity of Cape
Lookout, and will probably be a total loss. The other is a brig of 400 tons 
burden, John Parker, Capt. Roberts, of Providence R.I., bound for New Orleans to
Rottingdam and loaded with tobacco and staves. She is wrecked on the beach 
opposite Hunting Quarters is in a damaged condition and will probably prove a
total  loss. The crew of both vessels were saved."

From the Bermuda Royal Gazette, 22 September 1857
"The Barque Pearl, Captain W.S. Hutchings, from Baltimore bound to Demerera called 
off these Islands on Sunday last, and after communicating with the shore,
proceeded on her voyage.
Captain Hutchings, in a letter to us, states---- that he left the Capes on the 
15th instant. That on the 13th and 14th, while lying in Hampton Roads, he
experienced a heavy hurricane from the N.E. backing to N.W.; that there were 
at least 130 vessels in the Roadsted, windbound, that he saw on Cape Henry
Beach four vessels ashore. On the night he left, passed through a great quantity 
of wreck stuff such as cabin doors, chairs, beds, pillows, buckets, &c. On
the following morning, she spoke Brig Mary, McRae, of Belfast, the State of 
Maine, with nothing standing but fore-mast, and foreyard, having been dismasted
in the gale of the 13th and 14th. Supplied her with a Spar, which, Captain 
McR. Said was all he wanted. Cape Henry then bore W.N.W. 128 miles."


********************************************************************************

1857/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Storm is suggested to be stationary throughout its four day existence.  
This storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon 
reports from the ship "Ocean Express".

********************************************************************************

1857/04:  Combined Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis of storms #4 and #5 
into one continuous track.  Utilized Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay 
model for storm's winds over Texas and Mexico.  Storm is determined to have
reached hurricane status based upon report from the ship "Cadet".

********************************************************************************

1857 - Additional Notes:
1.  The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1857 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because we determined that this storm and
storm 1857/04 were likely the same system.  Thus information on this
storm is now carried in its entirety as 1857/04, while Partagas and 
and Diaz's storm #5 in 1857 is removed.

********************************************************************************

1858/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon observations from ship "L. H. Sampson".

********************************************************************************

1858/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon observations from ship "Shelter".

********************************************************************************

1858/03:  Only major change to Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis was to 
extend the track 12 hr into Canada to account for observations in Maine.  
Utilized the northern wind-pressure relationship of hurricanes for winds at 
landfall.  A peripheral pressure reading of 978 mb (around 17 UTC on the
16th) suggests winds of at least 75 kt - 80 kt chosen for the best
track.  Central pressure observation of 979 mb gives 74 kt, for the second
landfall in Connecticut/Rhode Island - 70 kt is utilized for the second 
landfall.  Both of these pressure measurements support hurricane status for 
this storm.  Also used the Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model 
for winds over New England.  Ludlum (1963) referred to this storm as the 
"New England Tropical Storm of 1858".

1858/03 - 2003 REVISION:

01185 09/14/1858 M= 4  3 SNBR=  41 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
01190 09/14*252 846  60    0*260 839  60    0*269 831  60    0*279 820  50    0
01195 09/15*289 808  50    0*300 796  60    0*312 785  80    0*324 773  90    0
01200 09/16*340 758  90    0*360 746  90    0*385 733  80    0*414 720  70  979
01205 09/17*455 700  60    0*500 670  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
01205 09/17*455 700  50    0*500 670  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
                     **               **

01210 HR NY1 CT1 RI1 MA1  

As the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized for this
hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland
decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical
cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001).  This model does decay systems faster 
and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 00 and 06Z on the 17th, 
which is reflected in the revised HURDAT.  
Additional information on this hurricane was also obtained by Boose et al. 
(2001).  They analyzed this hurricane as a Category 2 at U.S. landfall based 
upon a Fujita-style analysis of hurricane wind-caused destruction, but had a 
slight high bias in the reconstructed versus actual damage in their damage-
based empirical wind modeling work.  Thus landfall as a high end Category 1 
hurricane (80 kt) in New York is reasonable to retain.  Boose et al. (2001) 
also estimated a RMW of 45 nmi at landfall.  

********************************************************************************

1858/04:  Combined Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis of storms #4 and #5 
into one continuous track.  No other changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) 
analysis.  The storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based
upon observations from the ships "Phantom", "Hudson" and "City of
Washington".

********************************************************************************

1858/05: Storm was originally #6 in 1858 in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) 
analysis.  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm 
is determined to have reached hurricane status from observations from ship
"Priscilla".

1858/05 - 2003 REVISION:

01265 09/22/1858 M= 4  5 SNBR=  43 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
01270 09/22*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*219 740  50    0*232 740  50    0
01275 09/23*246 740  60    0*261 740  60    0*279 740  70    0*293 741  70    0
01280 09/24*307 741  70    0*322 740  70    0*333 738  80    0*339 736  80    0
01280 09/24*307 741  70    0*322 740  70    0*333 738  80    0*339 737  80    0
                                                                   ***

01285 09/25*345 736  80    0*352 734  80    0*359 731  80    0*365 726  80    0
01290 HR

Track adjusted slightly to allow for a more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************


1858/06: Storm was originally #7 in 1858 in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) 
analysis.  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm 
is determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction in Bermuda
and several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1858 - Additional Notes:
1.  The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1858 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because we determined that this storm and
storm 1858/04 were likely the same system.  Thus information on this
storm is now carried in its entirety as 1858/04, while Partagas and Diaz's
storm #5 in 1858 is removed.

********************************************************************************


1859/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No track 
available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon damage in Tuxpan and Tecoluta, Mexico.

********************************************************************************

1859/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Pressure
readings of 989 and 982 mb not in the hurricane's center (on 00 UTC of August
17th and 18th, respectively) suggest winds of at least 64 and 71 kt from
the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track because 
of these values and from description of winds from ship reports, supporting
hurricane status for this storm.

********************************************************************************

1859/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status from reports provided from
St. Kitts.

1859/03 - 2003 REVISION:

01375 09/02/1859 M= 2  3 SNBR=  47 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
01380 09/02*172 597  70    0*174 607  70    0*176 618  70    0*177 630  70    0
01380 09/02*173 597  70    0*174 607  70    0*175 618  70    0*175 630  70    0
            ***                               ***              ***  

01385 09/03*177 641  70    0*179 654  70    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
01385 09/03*174 641  70    0*173 654  70    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
            ***              ***

01390 HR 

Re-examination of Salivia's (1972) Puerto Rican hurricane history, Boose
et al. (2003) and J. Colon (personal communication) reveals that this
hurricane did not impact Puerto Rico.  The track is adjusted slightly
southward to avoid a direct impact on the island, yet still cause 
the observed hurricane conditions in St. Kitts and St. Croix described
in Partagas and Diaz (1995a).
 
********************************************************************************

1859/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
No track available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached 
hurricane status from report from ship "Liberty".

1859/04 - 2003 REVISION:

01395 09/12/1859 M= 1  4 SNBR=  48 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
01395 09/12/1859 M= 2  4 SNBR=  48 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                    *

01400 09/12*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*395 505  90    0*  0   0   0    0
01400 09/12*  0   0   0    0*355 575  90    0*370 545  90    0*390 520  90    0
                             *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  **
                            
(The 13th is new to HURDAT.)
01402 09/13*410 500  80    0*430 485  80    0*455 465  70    0*490 435  70    0

01405 HR

Mr. Doug Mayes at the University of South Carolina uncovered additional
ship observations, which allow for a track to be determined for this
hurricane from 06Z on the 12th through 18Z on the 13th.

New York Tribune Oct 1. 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 1 1859 p. 8)
Ship Coronet, Flowers, Liverpool. . . .12 inst lat 42 lon 50 experienced
a heavy gale which split fore and topsails, main spencer and done other 
damage.

New York Tribune Oct 5 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 4 1859 p. 8) 
Bark Etiwan (of Charleston) . . . . Sept 12th lat 36 lon 56 30 had a 
very heavy gale from SE which lasted for six hours veering suddenly to 
NW with equal force; split sails &c. 

New York Tribune Sept 30 1859 p. 8 
Ship Cordelia, Bishop, . . . Sept 13th lat 49 48 lon 4? 08 experienced a 
hurricane from E to SW which blew away entire suite of sails, sprung 
foreyard, main topmast crosstrees, and strained the ship badly, causing 
her to leak.

New York Tribune Oct 5 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 4 1859 p. 8)
Brig Bell Flower (of Pittston). . . . . Experienced heavy gales, split 
sails &c.  Sept 13 lat 45 30 Lon 47 23, during the violent gale from NE, 
was boarded by a sea which stove the deck cabin, filling the cabin with 
water, and washed the Captain and a seaman named Samuel Thomas overboard 
who were lost.

New York Times Oct 5 1859 p. 8 
Ship Anna Decatur, Parsons, Sunderland. . . . Sept 13 in lat 46 
experienced very heavy gales.


********************************************************************************

1859/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
No track available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached 
hurricane status based upon destruction which occurred in Mobile.

1859/05 - 2003 REVISION:

01410 09/16/1859 M= 1  5 SNBR=  49 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
01410 09/15/1859 M= 4  5 SNBR=  49 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
         **         *

(15th not in HURDAT originally.)
01413 09/15*280 890  70    0*285 890  70    0*290 889  70    0*296 886  70    0

01415 09/16*305 880  80    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
01415 09/16*303 881  70    0*311 875  50    0*320 868  40    0*331 848  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(The 17th and 18th are new to HURDAT.)
01416 09/17*343 825  40    0*356 800  40    0*370 775  50    0*385 745  60    0
01417 09/18*400 710  70    0*412 665  70    0*420 610  70    0*425 550  70    0

01420 HR AL1 
01420 HR AL1AFL1 
            ****


U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
5-9/16/1859    0000Z 30.5N  88.0W   80kt  1     (977mb)    AL1
5-9/16/1859    0000Z 30.3N  88.1W   70kt  1     (985mb)    AL1,AFL1
                     ****   ****    **           ***           ****

Ship and land station observations uncovered by Mr. Doug Mayes and Prof.
Cary Mock at the University of South Carolina and Mr. Michael Chenoweth
are able to well document a track for this hurricane during its
passage over the southeast United States and back out over the Atlantic.
All of these newly analyzed data are documented in full below.  The data
reconfirms a minimal hurricane making landfall near Mobile, Alabama which
also caused Category 1 hurricane conditions in Pensacola, Florida.  The
landfall intensity though was reduced slightly due to the lack of strong 
pressure drop at Warrington, FL just east of the landfall point and relatively 
weak winds observed just north of Mobile (at Mt. Vernon, AL) soon after 
landfall.  This system then trekked to the northeast and reemerged back 
over the Atlantic near Virginia/Maryland.  Ship reports indicate that the 
storm re-acquired hurricane intensity over the open Atlantic.  A 
peripheral pressure of 996 mb (at 19Z on the 17th in Annapolis) suggests 
winds of at least 55 kt from the northern wind pressure relationship -
60 kt chosen for best track.

Newspaper Reports:
The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) Sunday, Sept 18, 1859, p.3
The Late Storm in Mobile. - Our Mobile exchanges, of Friday morning, come 
to us with full accounts of the storm in that city the day and night
previous.  It appears that the rain began to fall as early as 3 o'clock in
the morning, and continued without the slightest cessation during the 
whole day, at times accompanied by a heavy gale of wind, which shifted
at the edge of evening from northeast to southeast.  
At this time the alarm became very great.  The wind blew a hurricane and
the water flooded the wharf at the foot of Conti, and was still rising
when the authorities ordered the water alarm bells to be rung, and "the
bell on the tower pealed forth its ten strokes with fearful import.  Great
excitement prevailed, and the merchants on Commerce and Front streets
set about removing the merchandise into the second stories."
About half-past 9, however, the wind shifted to the south, the rain 
ceased, and the water began to recede and fears to subside.  As to the
damage, it is not, from the lateness of the hour, fully reported.  It is
stated, however, that the telegraph wires were broken down in every 
direction; the wharves and bath houses along the city side of the bay were
carried away; boxes, barrels and bales set afloat; and at a late hour
intelligence, from along the line of railroad track, was received, which
caused serious apprehensions that the trains would be interrupted for two
or three days, to the great inconvenience of a large amount of freight
at the depot.
Accidents from Thursday's Blow.- The schooner W. W. Harkness, Capt. 
Peterson, hence for Tampico, when about two miles above the head of the
Southwest Pass, during a heavy gale on Thursday last, lost her anchors
and chains and went ashore in four feet water.  
The steamboat Crescent, Capt. Carlton, left the levee on Wednesday
afternoon last . . . While proceeding on her voyage she encountered a
gale when off the Chandeleurs, which carried away her chimneys, pilot
house, texas and nearly all the bulwarks of the cabin.  
The main boat California, Capt. Myers, met the gale when opposite
Point Clear.  

The Daily Picayune Monday, Sept 19, 1859, p.4
The Storm on the Coast.  Damage to Shipping and other Property - 
The furious and destructive gale, which swept over the coast Thursday
last appears to have been much more violent at Pensacola and vicinity 
than even at Mobile.  The [Pensacola] Tribune of Friday says:
"On Wednesday night the first of the equinoctial storms commenced with
a vengeance, and yesterday the Storm King reigned supreme, the wind
blowing a hurricane and the rain falling a deluge.  Trees were 
uprooted and fences prostrated.  During the forepart of the day the 
wind blew, at different intervals, from every point of the compass,
with terrible force, sweeping everything before it.  At noon it 
settled in the southeast, from which point it blew with increased
violence.
The shipping in the bay was in a very critical condition, and greatly
confused.  The wind sporting with the smaller craft as with ebaff[?] 
- throwing them out on the beach and dashing them to pieces against the
wharves.
The schooner Hornet, with her cargo, was thrown ashore, and is now high
and dry.
At about 5 o'clock, the Palafox street wharf which had during the day,
up to the hour mentioned, nobly withstood the storm, succumbed to the
combined force of wind and wave, and was entirely demolished.
The new wharf also received damages to a considerable extent.
The bath-houses, the property of various individuals, situated along
the shore, were all completely destroyed.
It is almost miraculous how the entire shipping in the bay escaped
demolition.  Considering the violence of the storm, the damage done,
though great, might have been, and we fear is, far greater than here 
reported.
Vessels on the coast must have been greatly distressed, and we shall be
agreeably surprised, when sufficient time has elapsed, if we do not
hear of a greater loss of life and property than has ever been known
on the coast of Florida. . .
During Thursday night the wind shifted round to northeast, still 
blowing hard but somewhat inclined to lull.
At daylight this morning the beach presented an indescribable mass of
timbers from the different wrecks, drifted ashore during the night.
In the city, nothing more serious than fences blown down and shade
trees topped, have, as yet, been heard of.  On the beach, there are
numerous different estimates as to the value of property destroyed.
In lieu of authentic information, we give the lowest estimate rumored,
$10,000. . .
At the time we go to press it has abated its fury, though the winds
still blow in stiff breeze."
Safety of the Galveston - 
By a letter of the same date, but written some hours later, in the
Mobile Tribune, we are gratified to learn of the safety of the 
Galveston, Capt. Hutchings, which left this port with the Florida
mails the morning of the 14th.  She arrived at Pensacola about 10 
o'clock Friday morning.  The writer says:
"After getting to sea the wind commenced to blow fresh from the 
southeast, and increased to a gale, and blowed from almost every
point of the compass.  At 5 A. M. Thursday she was within twenty 
miles of Pensacola bar, but the gale increasing, it was dangerous
to keep on her course, and consequently she headed off the land and
rode the gale out.  At midnight the gale moderated, and the ship 
was again on her course for this place.  The wheel houses are stove
in, and the forward part of the ship above the deck is stove in also.  
It was necessary to throw off part of her deck load, and most of that 
on deck is damaged, as the water washed through the ship from fore to 
aft.  She has not sustained damage though to detain her." . . .
The Damage at Mobile -
Our neighbors of Mobile appear to have been more frightened than
hurt.  Only some sugar, flour, &c., on the ground floors of a few
of the warehouses were injured.  
At Point Clear nearly all of the little bath houses and wharves were
swept away, and the sojourners were much alarmed.
Higher up, on the eastern shore, every wharf and bath house, except
Hudson's and Stark's is gone.
In the neighborhood of Short's wharf, two oyster boats capsized, one
of them the Sea Bird, and two persons, names unknown, were drowned.

The Daily Picayune Sunday, Sept 18, 1859, p.3
Heavy Storm at New York. Extensive Damage to Property.  
New York, Sept. 17. - A very violent storm of wind a rain passed over
this city today doing considerable damage to shipping.  
Among the disasters, the bark Mary Ellen, from Bremen, dragged her
anchors and went ashore on Governor's Island.
There was also considerable damage to other property.
A five-story warehouse in progress of erection, in Duane street, was
blown down and completely demolished.  The house adjoining was also
thrown down and the tenants buried beneath the ruins.

Daily National Intelligencer (Washington) Tuesday Sept. 20 1859  p. 2  
The ravages of the storm of Friday and Saturday have been general and 
severe.  The amount of water was over eight inches.  The damage to the 
ungathered crops and to mill dams and fences has been very great.

Daily National Intelligencer Tuesday Sept 20 1859 p. 2 
The Fresh, subsequent to the date of our report of yesterday, raised 
sufficiently on Sunday night to do some damage.  Scantling and other 
lumber was carried off from some of the lumber yards in Georgetown, and 
more or less of it lost.  In addition to the loss of salt by a 
Georgetown merchant, about fifty barrels of flour belonging to 
Mr. Cruikshank were damages.  This is all we hear of worth mentioning in
addition.  

Daily National Intelligencer Tuesday Sept 20 1859 p. 2  
Of the Chesepeake and Ohio canal it is yet in our power to say but 
little.  Unauthenticated reports were current yesterday of a breach on 
the nine mile level, and also east of the Great Falls, but they received 
little credence.  A telegraph dispatch from Harper's Ferry yesterday 
announced Dam No. 4 as swept away, but this was deemed altogether 
extravagant.  The coffer-dam lately inserted and the yet unfinished 
guard bank were most likely injured, but that the solid masonry of the 
dam has suffered is scarcely credible.

Daily National Intelligencer Tuesday Sept 20 1859 p. 2 
Extraordinary Fall of Rain. ---  The amount of rain at Grafton Cottage 
near Washington, in the storm of the 16th and 17th instant, was six 
inches and four-tenths September 19,  CHAS. G. PAGE.

Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3 
The freshet in the Potomac caused by the heavy rains of Friday and 
Saturday was a source of considerable excitement yesterday all along the 
river banks.  . . . . At five o'clock the river was rising at the 
Georgetown wharves, but we were assured that at the little falls bridge 
it was falling.  Some apprehension was felt for what might take place at 
the next flood tide.

Daily National Intelligencer  Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3
A good many persons were hard at work at the western wharves scouring 
private and public property there.  The new depot of New York Steamship 
company was considered in much peril if the river should rise higher;  as
it was the water was up more than 100 feet beyond shore.  The contents of
the depot were removed in good time.

Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3
The current in the Potomac was very rapid, and large quantities of 
driftwood passed down.  In some cases lodging against vessels at the 
wharves somewhat to there risk.  The Long Bridge, in its present fragile 
state,  appeared to be in danger, but may withstand the pressure against 
it.

Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3
The Chesapeake and Ohio canal, so far as heard from has suffered no 
damage from the fresh.  The water was let out of the Georgetown level to 
prevent breaches there, and it is hoped that similar precaution was 
observed all along the line.  Some solicitude is felt for dams No. 4 and 
5, but nothing is known, as the telegraph was not at work yesterday.

New York Tribune  Monday Sept 19, 1859 p. 8
Brig Tangent, Plummer, from Boston, for Elizabethport, in Ballast for 
coal, arrived at the Hook on Friday night, and during the gale of 
Saturday dragged both anchors into two fathoms of water.  Her foremast 
was cut away, which with the yards and main topmast, went over the side, 
when she held.  She was towed up to the city on Sunday.

New York Tribune  Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8  
Steamship Potomac, Watson, Savannah, . . . . On the 17th inst . . .  
9 P.M. 10 miles off Cape Hatteras, passed steamship Parkersburg hence for 
Savannah.  The P. experienced a heavy gale from the N.E.

New York Tribune  Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8 
Ship Marathon, Tyler Liverpool, . . . 17th inst, Lat 40 30, Lon ?9 in a 
gale from SE to NNE carried away main topmast trestletrees.

New York Tribune  Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8 
Ship Manhattan, Dixon, Liverpool Aug. 6. . . . has been twenty days west
of the banks with light westerly winds; had to haul off shore Saturday 
night during the heavy easterly gales.

New York Tribune  Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8 
Bark Milton, Bradford, Liverpool Aug 10. . . . Saturday 17th had a heavy 
gale from ESE to NNE with a bad sea, vessel laboring very heavy, Montauk 
bearing North 50 miles.

New York Tribune Sept 21, 1859 p. 12 
Ship Havre, Askins, . . . Sept 17 and 18, Lat 40 20 Lon 70 experienced a 
heavy gale from SE to NNE.

New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12
Ship Martha (of Boston)  Arr. Off the Hook 17th and hauled off shore in 
a heavy gale from E. Had heavy weather off Algoa Bay; slit split sails, 
washed away bulwarks, &c. 

New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12 
Ship Wm H Prescott (of Boston) . . . .17th inst, had a gale from SE to W; 
18th had hurricane from the N during which shifted cargo.

New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12 
Bark Kepler . . . 17th inst, highlands bearing WNW bearing 40 miles 
passed schr Oregon lying to; experienced heavy westerly gales up to 
Lon 50.  since then light westerly winds and calms and on the 17th inst 
had a head easterly gale.

New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12 
Schr Alma . . . 17th inst5 miles E of Sandy Hook, took  a gale from ESE 
and was compelled to haul off shore, during which split foresail, stove 
bulwarks, &c.

New York Tribune Sept 22 1859 p. 8 
Ship Messenger, Hooper . . . . Sept 17 off the Capes of Delaware, 
experienced a hurricane fm NE which blew away foretopsail and jib.

New York Tribune Sept 22 1859 p. 8 
Brig Salus Arkle, Palmero 70 days, and Gibraltar 36 days fruit to order. 
Sept 18 in a heavy gale from N., split sails &c.

New York Tribune Sept 22 1859 p. 8
Schr Sir Colin Campbell, Virgens, Sagua 11 days, sugar, &c. to Whitman 
Bros.  Sept 17 experienced a heavy gale from ENE lost deck load of 
Molasses.

New York Tribune Sept 23 1859 p. 8 
Ship Constitution . . . . 17th Lat. 41 Lon. 67 had another very heavy 
blow from S and NW with a high cross sea running.

New York Tribune Sept 23 1859 p. 8 
Bark R G W Dodge. . . 16th and  17th inst had heavy gale from SE

New York Tribune Sept 24 1859 p. 8
Bark Harvest Hammond Savannah 7days, in ballast to Sturgis Clearman and 
Company. Sept 17 SE of Hatteras experienced a very heavy gale from 
Southeast.

New York Tribune Oct 1 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 1 1859 p. 8)
Schr. Louisa A. Johnson (of Brookhaven). . . . 18th inst, lat 41 52 
lon 56 49 in a hurricane from NW lost mainboom and received other 
damage.

New York Times Oct 3 1859 p. 8 
Ship Lady Franklin, Jordan, Liverpool. . . . Sept 18 lat 44 lon 58 
experienced a hurricane from SE did no damage.

New York Times Sept 23 1859 p. 8 (and Charleston Daily Courier Sept
22 1859 p. 4)
Steamer Chesapeake . . . .during the NE gales of the 18th while off 
Cape Cod sprang a leak and threw overboard 400lbs of sugar and syrup.  
She still leaks and is kept free by her donkey pumps.  She will, after 
discharging her cargo, go to the docks for repairs.

New York Times Sept 20 1859 p. 8
Steamer George's Creek On the 16th experienced a heavy gale from the NE 
and was compelled to put into Hampton Roads for harbor.

New York Times Sept 19 1859 p. 8 (and Charleston Daily Courier Sept
22 p. 4)
Steamship Nashville. . . . The Nashville experienced very heavy gales 
from Hatteras to the Lower Bay where she anchored last evening the 17th.

Instrumental Records
--------------------
Date Time Station    Temp in  Cloudiness  Wind Wind  Comments
          Pressure    Open      Amount    Dir. Speed
Annapolis, Maryland	
16SEP 7am   30.12      63        10       NE    2
      2pm   30.06      65        10       ESE   3
      9pm   29.94      64        10       ENE   3   Rain began 9pm
17SEP 7am   29.51      67        10       NE    3
      2pm   29.37      60        10       N     4
      9pm   29.72      63        10       NW    2   Rain ended 9pm, 4.8"
18SEP 7am   29.86      57.5       0       NW    1
      2pm   29.84      72.5       3       N     1
      9pm   29.86      65         3       N     1

Fort Monroe, Virginia
16SEP 7am   30.30      73        Cloudy   E     4   Rain began 6am
      2pm   30.20      72        Cloudy   E     5
      9pm    NA        71        Cloudy   E     5
17SEP 7am   29.71      75        Cloudy   SW    4   Rain ended 5am, 0.86
      2pm   29.80      75        Cloudy   NE    2
      9pm   30.00      68        Fair     NW    2
18SEP 7am   30.15      70        Fair     NW    2
      2pm   30.18      73        Fair     NE    2
      9pm    NA        70        Fair     SW    2

US Naval Ob., Wash. D.C. (selected)
16SEP noon  30.22      68        10       SE    1   Rain began 2.5am
      2.5pm 30.18      66        10       E     2
      8.5pm 30.07      63        10       E     3
17SEP 0.5am 29.95      64        10       NE    3   Rain cont., 0.93"
      2.5am 29.90      63        10       NE    3
      6.5am 29.60      64        10       E     4
      8.5am 29.59      68.5      10       E     5
      9.5am 29.44      69        10       E     4
     10.5am 29.42      68        10       NNE   5
      noon  29.54      61        10       NW    6
      2.5pm 29.66      60        10       NW    6
      3.5pm 29.73      60        10       NW    6
      4.5pm 29.78      60        10       NW    6
      6.5pm 29.82      60        10       WNW   6
      8.5pm 29.89      60        10       WNW   4
      9.5pm 29.90      60        10       NW    3   Rain ended 9pm, 3.34"
18SEP 2.5am 29.95      60         4       NW    3   
      8.5am 30.04      64         1       NW    2
      noon  30.03      74        10       NW    3

Washington D. C.
16SEP 7am   30.28      60        10       NE    2   Rain began 1am   
      2pm   30.20      67        10       SE    3 
      9pm   30.08      63        10       NE    4 
17SEP 7am   29.51      69        10       NE    4
      2pm   29.61      61        10       NW    4   cont., 4.00"
      9pm   29.89      62        10       NW    4   Rain ended 9.5pm, 0.34"
18SEP 7am   30.03      61         0       NW    NA
      2pm   30.06      71         3       NW    1 
      9pm   30.08      64         0       0     0


Other records and diary entries
-------------------------------
(These observations are typically taken on a 7am/2pm/9pm timeframe.)

Mt Vernon Barracks AL
13th   N2/N3/NE0 
14th   NE1/NE0/N0
15th   NE0/NE6/NE5
16th   W3/W1/N0
17th   N0/NE0/NE0
On the 15th, 3.05 inches of rain, "Rained all day without ceasing"

Columbus MS
15th   SE2/SE3/E3 0.108 inches of rain
16th   N3/N3/N1
17th   N1/S2/E1

Pauling MS
15th   NE3/NE4/NE4
16th   NE2/NW3/NE1
17th   N1/M/E2
On the 15th, "wind at 6 pm NE5", rain 1.650 from 12 M to 1 AM

New Orleans LA
15th   NE4/N5/NW5
16th   W2/NW3/SW1
17th   E1/NE2/E2
On the 15th, High wind in the evening. 0.39 inches of rain. Barometer
on the 15th down to 29.85 in the middle of the day.

Baton Rouge LA
15th   NE2/NE4/NE2
16th   W1/NE2/NE1
17th   E1/E2/SE1

Thomaston GA
14th   72/76/72   29.05/29.05/29.05   SW/SE2/SE0   3.35" rain
15th   73/74/71   28.8/28.8/29.0      E1/SE2/SE4		
16th   70/84/77   29.0/29.0/29.0      S5/S4/SW_
17th   70/84/77   29.0/29.0/29.0      NE/SW/SW

Whitemarsh Island, GA
14th   71/84/75   W1/SSE3/M
15th   73/80/77   N1/NE3/SE3   1.35" rain
16th   77/82/79   S4/S5/WSW5   0.08" rain
17th   72/83/75   WNW3/WNW3/M

Sparta, GA
14th   61/85/70	  SW1/NW1/N1
15th   65/72/69	  E1/NE2/E4     rain afternoon night
16th   70/74/69	  SE1/SW3/SW4   rain During day
17th   63/83/71   W1/NW3/NE1

Augusta GA
14th   65/91/75     30.25/30.30/30.34   W0/W1/W0
15th   72.5/75/72   30.30/30.24/30.18   W0/W0/W0
16th   74/79/73     30.10/30.05/30.00   SE3/SE2/SW2   1.88" rain
17th   69/88/72     30.02/30.07/30.15   W0/W1/W0      0.42" rain

St Augustine, FL
14th   84/88/87   29.92/29.92/29.97   SW1/SE3/SW1
15th   84/86/84   30.10/30.10/30.10   SE3/SE4/SE4
16th   83/78/77   30.04/30.00/29.97   S3/SW3/SW2   0.40" rain
17th   80/90/87   30.00/30.00/30.00   NW2/SW3/SW1
Note most winds were 3+ in strength all month

Cedar Keys, FL
14th   80/86/80   S1/SW1/0
15th   80/85/81   E3/SE2/SE4
16th   76/81/80   SE3/SW3/SW4
17th   77/82/77   NW2/W2/NW2

Barrancas Barracks, FL
14th   72/88/84   N2/SE3/SE3
15th   76/81/79   NE3/SE7/SE8   3.30" rain
16th   75/87/77   NW5/NW2/N2
17th   75/87/81   N1/SW1/NW2

Warrington FL (US Naval Hospital)
14th   78/80/86/79   29.90/29.90/29.90/29.90   SW2/SW3/SW3/SW5   rain
15th   78/76/79/75   29.90/29.88/29.83/29.73   NE7/NE7/E7/SE7    rain
16th   74/80/87/80   29.79/29.80/29.84/29.87   NW7/SW5/SW4/SW3
17th   74/80/88/80   29.92/29.92/29.92/29.93   SW2/SW2/SW2/SW3

Lake City, FL
14th   77/92/78   S1/S2/0      0.50" rain
15th   79/87/75   SE1/S2/S2	
16th   74/82/78   S3/SW5/SW2   1.60" rain
17th   76/88/76   SW1/0/0



A. Glennie, Pawley's Island SC
14th   74/80/62   30.05   E/S/S
15th   67/79/77   30.05   N/SE/E
16th   79/83/80   29.80   S/S/SW   0.22
17th   72/82/72   30.02   W/W/W

Black Oak, Pinopolis SC
14th   61/82/72   30.05/30.13/30.14   NW/NE/SE	
15th   67/81/76	  30.15/30.23/30.21   NE/NE/SE   Cloudy/Rain/Cloudy
                                                 Rain 0.01"
16th   76/83/80	  30.14/30.03/29.92   SE/SE/E    Squally with high wind. 
                                                 Rain 0.09"
17th   70/82/71   29.95/30.02/30.03   NW/NW/W    Clear

Charleston Board of Health, SC
14th   69/81/78   30.11/30.15/30.21   SW2/E2    Fair
15th   76/80/78   30.24/30.26/30.25   NE2/SE2   Fair - rain 0.12"
16th   80/84/82   30.11/30.09/30.00   SE3/S5    Cloudy
17th   73/83/75   30.08/30.05/30.12   SW3/W1    Fair

Fort Moultrie, SC
14th   74/81/78   30.19/30.24/30.27   SW1/E2/E2     f/f/f - rain 0.23"
15th   76/80/77   30.22/30.24/30.26   NE1/E2/E1     cloudy/cloudy/f  
                                                    rain at intervals
16th   80/82/81   30.27/30.17/30.10   SE1/SE3/S5    f/cloudy/cloudy
                                                    stormy at 4 PM and 10 PM
17th   72/84/76   30.13/30.13/30.22   SW3/NW2/NW1   f/f/f

Arsenal Academy, Richland County (Columbia), SC
14th   68/86/71   NE0/SE2
15th   70/83/72   E3/SE3   [rain] 4.5 PM continued during night   
16th   73/78/68   W6/SE5   1.8" rain
17th   66/85/72   NE0/SW3

Aiken, SC
14th   63/87/72   E2/E2/E2
15th   M/72/66    M/E1/NE3   0.85" rain
16th   73/80/66   NE4/SE4/W4 0.94" rain
17th   67/81/69   W3/S2/SW1		

David Golightly Harris.  Spartanburg, SC
16th   Night before last and yesterday and last night it rained very hard
 
Charleston Courier, Saturday, September 17:  The winds and waves 
prevented the boat race which was eagerly expected on Friday afternoon.  
We shall no doubt have a trial on the first fair afternoon;  and after 
the gales and "blows" of this period, we may expect frequent occasions of 
such a delightful and exciting pastime.

Dr. Louis M. Desaussure.  Beaufort Dist., SC
16th - rain, threatening Sepr gale from N.E. - warm ...  Late in eveng, 
hard blow or gale of wind & rain from S.E. threw cotton down funneled it


& injured it.

John McPherson DeSaussure (Kershaw Dist.):  Rain fell 0.05 In.  wind 
S.E., S. or S.W.

Samuel Porcher Gaillard.  Sumter Dist., SC:
14th   Cool this morning, 68°.  Cloudy this evening
15th   Cloudy this morning & heavy fog.  About 9 am sun came out, 
overcast all morning from 11 am until 2 pm at which time the clouds were 
threatening at south & S.W.  At 3 pm had a few drops of rain & from that 
time to this, 8 pm, occasionally a few drops, likely to rain before 
morning.
16th   Had a little rain last night.  Cloudy & unsettled all morning.  
Had a slight shower just after daylight & ceased at 7 am.  At a ¼ of 12 
(& previous) heard thunder & by 20 after 12 a heavy cloud came over from 
S.S.W.  A very heavy fall of water.  It did not cease raining until near 
2 pm.  At 4 pm had a heavy shower all evening.  About sunset every 
appearance of clearing up as it has been clear at west but soon  became 
cloudy & has been raining off & on up to this time 9 pm the wind 
indicates stormy weather.
17th   Had a very heavy rain last night & wind very high, by 12 o'clock 
ceased & was clear before morning.  I heard this morning (which was ???? 
by a letter from my sister, Mrs. Rembert) that yesterday a tornado passed 
over Col. James Rembert's plantation.  Every building except smokehouse 
unroofed even his dwelling, which is a very large building.  All his 
fencing down.  I have no doubt it was [serious] to the crops.  He said it 
all was done in 5 minutes.

Charles Heyward, Charleston SC
15th   Good weather until today, Cloudy & rain
16th   Overcast.  Threatening weather but passed off during the night with 
a little high wind

Chapel Hill, NC
14th   68/80/65   29.61/29.66/29.69   NW1/W1/W1
15th   62/76/68   29.78/29.63/29.43   NE2/NE2/N2
16th   66/70/68   29.73/29.63/29.43   NW3/NW3/NW1
17th   66/80/69   29.33/29.46/29.56   NW3/NW3/SW1  0.15" rain

Murfreesboro, NC
14th                                 W1/SE1/NE1
15th   63/76/68   29.4/29.55/29.35   E2/NE2/E2
16th   69/70/69   29.3/29.25/29.2    SE4/SW3/NW1   0.60" rain
17th   72/82/71   28.9/29.0/29.1     NW1/NW1/NW1   0.50" rain

Basil Armstrong Thomason.  Yadkin County, NC
15th   Cloudy and cool.  Wind from the north east.  
16th   A real "north easter."  Came as near raining all day as common.  
       Guess this is the equinoctial storm.
17th   Clear and quite warm.  It rained a small flood last night, so the 
       creeks are past fording to-day.

Halifax, Nova Scotia
16th   42/60/37   29.9/29.9/29.9   NW & SW clear and fine 
                                   Thermometer at sunrise 32
17th   45/64/44   29.9/29.8/29.7   SE Cloudy rain at night
18th   50/56/53   29.5/29.4/29.4   ENE Heavy rain nearly all day
19th   57/65/47   29.4/29.4/29.6   WNW Cloudy - clear and fine

1859/05 - 2011 REVISION:

                  
01475 09/15*280 890  70    0*285 890  70    0*290 889  70    0*296 886  70    0*
01480 09/16*303 881  70    0*311 875  50    0*320 868  40    0*331 848  40    0*
01485 09/17*343 825  40    0*356 800  40    0*370 775  50    0*385 745  60    0*
01490 09/18*400 710  70    0*412 665  70    0*420 610  70    0*425 550  70    0*
01495 HR AL1AFL1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
5-9/16/1859    0000Z 30.3N  88.1W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AL1,AFL1
5-9/16/1859    0000Z 30.3N  88.1W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AL1,AFL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Alabama and Florida as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************



1859/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Utilized
the northern wind-pressure relationship for hurricanes from ship on 6th.
Ship with central pressure observation of 938 mb gives 105 kt, used 110 kt in 
best track - supporting major hurricane status of this storm.

********************************************************************************

1859/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland 
winds over Florida reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model.  

********************************************************************************

1859/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Pressure
reading of 989 mb not in hurricane's center (on 12 UTC, 28th of October)
suggests winds of at least 65 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track, supporting hurricane status
for this storm.

1859/08 - 2011 REVISION:

01560 10/28/1859 M= 6  8 SNBR=  53 NOT NAMED   XING=0                          L
01560 10/24/1859 M= 6  8 SNBR=  53 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                    L  
         **                                         * *****

(The 24th through the 27th is new to HURDAT.)
01561 10/24*202 933  40    0*203 933  40    0*204 933  40    0*206 932  40    0*
01562 10/25*207 932  40    0*208 932  50    0*210 931  50    0*212 930  50    0*
01563 10/26*214 929  60    0*216 928  60    0*218 926  70    0*220 925  80    0*
01564 10/27*223 921  80    0*225 917  80    0*231 910  80    0*239 900  80    0*

01565 10/28*294 796  70    0*296 791  70    0*298 786  80    0*300 781  80    0*
01565 10/28*248 887  80    0*257 871  80    0*267 850  80    0*277 828  80    0*
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  

01570 10/29*302 776  90    0*303 771  90    0*305 766  90    0*307 761  90    0*
01570 10/29*292 792  70  989E303 752  60    0E317 699  50    0E327 635  40    0*
            *** ***  **  ****    ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  ** 

(The 30th through the 2nd are removed from HURDAT.)
01575 10/30*308 758  80    0*309 755  80    0*310 750  80    0*310 745  80    0*
01580 10/31*310 741  80    0*310 736  80    0*309 730  70    0*308 726  70    0*
01585 11/01*308 721  70    0*308 716  70    0*308 711  70    0*308 706  70    0*
01590 11/02*308 700  70    0*309 695  70    0*310 690  70    0*312 685  70    0*
01595 HR
01595 HR BFL1CFL1
         ********

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
8-10/28/1859   1800Z 27.7N  82.8W   80kt  1    ---   (974mb)   BFL2,CFL1

Highlights: This report documents a new land-falling Florida hurricane (Saffir-
Simpson Category 1) previously undocumented. The new start point extends 
previous details of Storm 8 back to the Bay of Campeche and connects with data 
from the Atlantic previously reported in HURDAT. The later stages of the 
hurricane are now modified based on map analysis. The storm is now shown to 
have made a landfall over southern Tampa Bay and then accelerated to the 
east-northeast and becoming extratropical and passing near Bermuda by late on 
29 October as it merged with a frontal wave separating a steadily encroaching 
area of cold high pressure across the entire SE USA. This high pressure 
dominated the weather over this area into early November. 
(Re-analysis of this hurricane was provided by Mike Chenoweth.)

Key Observations:

Daily Picayune, 12 November	
"The late gale, or succession of gales in the Gulf, appears to have been one 
of the most extensive and prolonged we have for years had occasion to record. 
On the Mexican coast it lasted ten days, and none of the great sailing tracks 
appear to have been without a visit from it. Capt. Peterson, of the schooner 
W.W. Harkness, arrived yesterday from Tampico the 21st ult., furnishes the 
following interesting report of his experience, which will give best in the
words of the log itself:	

	"On the 23d October, two days out from Tampico, was compelled to heave to 
	and reef sails in a heavy norther in lat 25, long. 96, which lasted until 
	the 27th, when in lat. 22, long. 9246, was overtaken by a hurricane. Began 
	to blow at 8 P.M. from the northeast, and lasted till 11 A.M. the next 
	morning, when wind veered round to the northwest, barometer 27.50. During 
	all this time the Harkness was hove to with all sails furled, except a 
	little of the main peak set to keep her head to the sea, which run very 
	high. Lost two jibs, carried away head stays and worked loose bowsprit. 
	Vessel made water freely after the gale. Finally, obliged to drift without 
	any sails till temporary rigging could be made. Wind blowing strong from 
N.E. all the time.  November 2. - At 4P.M. exchanged signals with the schooner Star, 
bound south, lat. 2524 long. 9311.  November 4. - Vessel very crank. Fruits rotten. 
Was obliged to run in for the land, westward, in smooth water and brought to. All 
the fruit overboard.  Broke cargo aft and stowed forward, so as to bring vessel into 
sailing trim.  November 9. - Off Timablier [sic] Island. Exchange signals with 
steamships Mexico and Texas.  November 10. - Arrived at Southwest Pass, 21 days 
from Tampico, during which time not one single hour of fair wind. Nothing but a 
northeaster from one end of the Gulf to the other."

[NOTE: The barometer reading of 27.50 is not to be relied on. Also, the date of 
27 October is believed to be actually 26 October, in order to maintain 
continuity with	the land-based and other ship data.]	

Synoptic Features:

An area of low pressure probably formed over the southern Bay of Campeche 
around 23-24 October near the tail end of a cold front that was dissipating 
in the area. An area of high pressure over the southern U.S. brought an 
easterly flow along the entire northern Gulf Coast and strong northerly winds 
to the Florida Peninsula on 24 October but southeast and south winds were 
returning around the high in central and northern Texas, while northeast winds 
still blew in southern Texas. On 25 October, the high weakened with a ridge 
extending from Arkansas and Louisiana towards northeast Mexico. A trough of 
low pressure penetrated into the Florida panhandle from the north as a low 
pressure center moved across the Great Lakes region on the 25th and 26th of 
October. By 1800Z 26 October (about 2 p.m. Eastern Time) weak high pressure 
was central over central Texas and the lower Ohio River valley while a cold 
front extended along the eastern US into the north Gulf coast area. Easterly 
winds blew at Key West on 25 and 26 October.

At 1800Z 27 October a large high pressure area was central over the Great Plains 
and a low pressure center over the Gulf of St. Lawrence region of Canada. A cold 
front extended from the Atlantic across north-central South Carolina, central 
Georgia and just clearing the southeast tip of Louisiana and entering south 
Texas at about 27.5N. 

At 1800Z 28 October, the hurricane made landfall along the southeastern shores 
of Tampa Bay. The storm was accelerating in forward motion as it moved just 
south of a frontal boundary extending from near Bermuda to the St. Augustine 
and Cedar Keys area, then dipping more to the southwest into the western Gulf 
of Mexico and entering Mexico near about 23N latitude. High pressure was nearly 
stationary over the central Great Plains. Strong northerly winds prevailed from 
Savannah, Georgia westward into southern Texas.

During the next 12 hours, the hurricane, accelerating its forward motion passed 
over the present day Orlando area and emerged from the Florida coast between 
Cape Canaveral and Oak Hill. By 0600Z, the cyclone was near the intersection 
of the cold and warm fronts and had become extratropical. During the next 12 
hours, the low pressure continued to move to the east-northeast passing near 
and a little north of Bermuda. High pressure moved across Florida and dominated 
the area into the opening days of November. 

Pressure gradient winds account for the strong winds reported by a few ships on 
31 October and 1 November previously noted in Fernandez-Partagas and Diaz (1995) 
and are not associated with Storm 8. This leads to the major adjustments in 
the portion of the former HURDAT track east of Florida, which until now was 
the only documented portion of the storm.

Major Changes from Previous HURDAT

New ship reports from the Gulf of Mexico and daily weather maps of land-based 
data allow for this storm to be tracked back to its approximate area of origin 
in the Bay of Campeche.  In addition, the storm end date is moved forward to 
better fit with the large-scale circulation flow in which the hurricane moved 
through.

Weather reports from the U.S. Coast Survey at Egmont Key (near the mouth of 
Tampa Bay) and Charlotte Harbor, Florida were key to identifying the landfall 
position of the storm. Egmont Key was brushed by the northern portion of the 
eyewall so maximum sustained winds were not felt there (although considerable 
damage was done to equipment and instruments that led to the cessation of 
weather reports until early November). No barometer data are available for 
the storm center except by the Kensington schooner on 28 October, with a 989 mb 
reading. Based on weather map data, the time of observation of this reading is 
probably about 0100-0200Z 29 October. This pressure yields 61 kt wind speed 
using the Brown et al. north of 25N wind-pressure relationship.  The fast 
forward motion of the storm likely caused an additive effect to the maximum 
wind speed, so the intensity is analyzed at minimal hurricane force (70 kt), 
consistent with observed
hurricane force winds at the ship.

Land-based damage reports are limited to Egmont Key and the strongest winds 
probably avoided the island. Based on the wind descriptions at Egmont Key, 
a force 10 wind (~50 knots) on the weaker side of the east-northeastward moving 
hurricane, an approximate forward motion at landfall of about 22 kt (and 
increasing) and the subsequent pressure reading east of Florida of 
989 mb, a wind speed of 80 kt is assessed for landfall intensity in 
west Florida. The force 9 winds reported from Charlotte Harbor and the 
description of wind speed nearly at hurricane force could suggest stronger 
winds on the southeast and east side of the eye wall at landfall.  This makes 
the system a high end Category 1 hurricane at landfall in Florida.  A similar 
track of such a storm today would take it directly over or very near Walt Disney 
World and the city of Orlando.

One question addressed was whether the cyclone was undergoing extratropical 
transition either before landfall or after it was moving over Florida.  The 
temperature at Egmont Key at all three observations on 27 October was 74F with 
unsettled rainy weather prevailing all day. On 28 October there is a single 
temperature reading at 7am of 68.5F which would indeed indicate cooler air 
close to the hurricane. The temperatures at Charlotte Harbor on 27 October 
at the 3 ob times were 78-78-79 and on 28 October were 77-78-74.  Keeping in 
mind that the thermometers, being 1859, were in non-standard exposures and 
were probably wetted and acted like a wet bulb under the weather conditions 
prevailing at the time, may have indicated erroneously cooler air temperatures 
than what actually occurred during the storm.  Additionally, the central 
pressure from the Kensington suggests the storm was still a hurricane at this 
point but soon after becoming extratropical (so even having travelled over 
land it maintained hurricane intensity in an increasingly unfavorable 
environment).  It is estimated that extratropical transition occurred around 
06Z on the 28th – whereas no extratropical stage for this system was 
indicated previously.


********************************************************************************

1860/01:  Extended track three days into the Atlantic as was suggested by 
Partagas and Diaz (1995a).  However, it is noted by Prof. Cary Mock of the 
University of South Carolina and Sandrik (2001) that all of the available 
historical accounts from this time showed no evidence for tropical storm 
strength during its transit over Georgia.  It may very well be the case that 
this system dropped to tropical depression stage before redeveloping into a 
moderate-intensity tropical storm over the Atlantic.  Due to format chosen, 
however, that tropical depression stage is not utilized in HURDAT until 
1871, this system will be retained here formally as a minimal tropical storm 
over the southeast United States.  Inland winds over SE US derived from 
utilizing Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model.  Storm tide 
values from Ludlum (1963) for Fort St. Philip, Louisiana (12 ft) and 
Mobile, Alabama (10 ft).  Storm determined to have reached major hurricane 
status based upon destruction and storm tide values along U.S. Gulf coast.

1860/01 - 2011 REVISION:

01600 08/08/1860 M= 9  1 SNBR=  54 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
01605 08/08*279 841  40    0*278 845  40    0*278 848  50    0*277 853  50    0*
01610 08/09*276 859  60    0*275 863  60    0*275 868  70    0*274 875  70    0*
01615 08/10*274 880  80    0*274 885  80    0*275 890  90    0*275 895  90    0*
01620 08/11*276 899 100    0*279 901 100    0*284 903 110    0*290 901 110    0*
01625 08/12*297 898 100    0*305 889 100    0*310 880  70    0*313 868  50    0*
01630 08/13*314 856  40    0*315 846  40    0*317 836  40    0*318 826  40    0*
01635 08/14*319 816  40    0*320 806  40    0*320 796  50    0*320 786  50    0*
01640 08/15*320 776  50    0*323 766  50    0*325 756  50    0*327 746  50    0*
01645 08/16*330 735  50    0*333 720  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
01650 HR LA3 MS3 AL2                                                            

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-8/11/1860    2000Z 29.2N  90.0W  110kt  3    ---   (950mb)   LA3,MS3,AL2
1-8/11/1860    2000Z 29.2N  90.0W  110kt  3    ---   (945mb)   LA3,MS3,AL2
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi as a 110 kt hurricane.  This suggested 
a central pressure at landfall of 950 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 945 mb - 
for a 110 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.


********************************************************************************

1860/02:  Extended the track to the 26th to take into account ship 
observations reported by Partagas and Diaz's (1995a).  Otherwise, no major 
changes.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon
reports from the ships "Sabine", "Mary Rusell" and "Zurich".

********************************************************************************

1860/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No track 
available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon report from ship "Ocean Spray".

********************************************************************************

1860/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland 
winds over SE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model.  Storm tide value of 10' from Ho (1989) for Mobile, 
Alabama.  Storm determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction 
and tide experienced along the U.S. Gulf coast.

1860/04 - 2003 REVISION:

01620 09/11/1860 M= 6  4 SNBR=  56 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
01625 09/11*251 838  90    0*252 841  90    0*252 845  90    0*252 848  90    0
01630 09/12*252 851  90    0*252 856  90    0*254 860  90    0*255 866  90    0
01630 09/12*252 852  90    0*253 856  90    0*254 860  90    0*255 866  90    0
                ***          ***

01635 09/13*256 871  90    0*257 876  90    0*259 881  90    0*262 886  90    0
01640 09/14*267 893  90    0*272 896  90    0*277 899  90    0*283 898  90    0
01640 09/14*267 893  90    0*272 896  90    0*277 898  90    0*283 898  90    0
                                                  ***

01645 09/15*289 896  90    0*295 896  90    0*301 894  90    0*308 891  70    0
01645 09/15*289 897  90    0*295 896  90    0*301 894  90    0*308 891  70    0
                ***

01650 09/16*318 886  50    0*330 880  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
01655 HR LA2 MS2 AL1

Track altered slightly to allow for a more realistic translational velocity.

1860/04 - 2011 REVISION:

01695 09/11/1860 M= 6  4 SNBR=  57 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
01700 09/11*251 838  90    0*252 841  90    0*252 845  90    0*252 848  90    0*
01705 09/12*252 852  90    0*253 856  90    0*254 860  90    0*255 866  90    0*
01710 09/13*256 871  90    0*257 876  90    0*259 881  90    0*262 886  90    0*
01715 09/14*267 893  90    0*272 896  90    0*277 898  90    0*283 898  90    0*
01720 09/15*289 897  90    0*295 896  90    0*301 894  90    0*308 891  70    0*
01725 09/16*318 886  50    0*330 880  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
01730 HR LA2 MS2 AL1                                                            

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-9/15/1860    0400Z 29.3N  89.6W   90kt  2    ---   (969mb)   LA2,MS2,AL1
4-9/15/1860    0400Z 29.3N  89.6W   90kt  2    ---   (965mb)   LA2,MS2,AL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi as a 90 kt hurricane.  This suggested 
a central pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb - 
for a 90 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.


********************************************************************************

1860/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  

********************************************************************************


1860/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland 
winds over SE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model.  Storm determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon destruction in Louisiana.

1860/06 - 2011 REVISION:

01765 09/30/1860 M= 4  6 SNBR=  59 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
01770 09/30*224 910  50    0*226 911  50    0*230 913  60    0*234 915  60    0*
01775 10/01*237 916  70    0*244 919  70    0*251 920  80    0*260 921  80    0*
01780 10/02*268 920  80    0*276 919  90    0*285 916  90    0*297 914  90    0*
01785 10/03*312 909  60    0*323 905  50    0*335 900  40    0*347 891  40    0*
01790 HR LA2                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
6-10/2/1860    1700Z 29.5N  91.4W   90kt  2    ---   (969mb)   LA2
6-10/2/1860    1700Z 29.5N  91.4W   90kt  2    ---   (965mb)   LA2
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 90 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb - 
for a 90 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1860/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
inland decay model.  Storm determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon several ship reports. 

********************************************************************************

1861/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several
ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1861/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon ship 
reports from the "Santiago de Cuba" and the "Kate Stevens".  Storm
is known as the "Key West Hurricane" from its impacts in Key West,
Florida (Ludlum 1963).

1861/02 - 2003 REVISION:

01800 08/14/1861 M= 4  2 SNBR=  61 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
01800 08/13/1861 M= 5  2 SNBR=  61 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
         **         *           

(The 13th is new to HURDAT.)
01805 08/13*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*205 700  40    0*210 715  40    0

01805 08/14*230 756  70    0*231 765  70    0*232 775  70    0*232 783  70    0
01805 08/14*215 730  50    0*220 745  60    0*225 760  70    0*229 774  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

01810 08/15*235 793  80    0*237 801  80    0*237 810  90    0*239 816  90    0
01810 08/15*232 787  80    0*235 799  80    0*237 808  80    0*239 815  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***              ***  **          ***  **

01815 08/16*240 823  90    0*240 828  90    0*240 835  80    0*240 839  80    0
01815 08/16*242 820  80    0*246 825  80    0*250 830  70    0*254 835  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

01820 08/17*240 843  80    0*240 846  80    0*240 851  80    0*239 856  80    0
01820 08/17*258 840  60    0*262 845  60    0*266 850  50    0*270 856  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **

01825 HRBFL1

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
2-8/15/1861$*  2100Z 24.0N  82.0W   70kt  1     (970mb)   BFL1
2-8/16/1861$*  0000Z 24.2N  82.0W   70kt  1     (970mb)   BFL1
                     ****           

Additional observations for this hurricane were obtained from a
weather record kept by the U.S. Consul at Turk's Island (Salt Cay) for
the Smithsonian Institute that is located in the US National Archives. 
(Thanks to Michael Chenoweth for providing this additional data.)
These are provided in full below:

Date             0900L   1400L   2100L   0900L  1400L  2100L

August 12, 1861  29.95"  29.94"  29.94"
August 13, 1861  29.90"  29.70"  29.60"  NE 6   SE 5   NE  6
August 14, 1861  29.95"  29.96"  29.96"

Comment for 13 August: This was a very stormy day. Generally
persons prepared for a hurricane.

Smithsonian Wind Force Scale 
(values are estimates of the highest gusts) 
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze  2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze      4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze      12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze     25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze       35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale              45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale       60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale      75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane         90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent    100 mph (87 kt)

Best track is extended back one-half day to the 13th and the track is 
adjusted on the 14th and 15th accordingly.  The 1002 mb peripheral pressure 
measurement suggests winds of at least 43 kt from the southern wind-pressure 
relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track.  Winds are adjusted accordingly 
on the 14th.  

Further additional observations were provided by Brian Jones of the
University of Miami in his analysis of military fort observations
in Florida:

Fort Jefferson (24.7N, 82.8W):
Date       12Z    19Z    02Z 
8/13/1861  E-3    E-2    E-1   "night 0.39"
8/14/1861  NE-2   NE-1   NW-3  "rain at night .24"
8/15/1861  N-4    N-4    N-6   "light showers at intervals .06"
8/16/1861  NW-6   SW-5   W-4   (No comments provided)
8/17/1861  SW-4   SW-4   SE-3  (No comments provided)

Military Post Wind Force Scale
(values are estimates of the highest gusts)
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze  2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze      4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze      12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze     25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze       35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale              45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale       60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale      75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane         90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent    100 mph (87 kt)

These data strongly suggest that the hurricane passed to the east,
north and then northwest of the fort, rather than moving south of
the fort.  The change of track provided for the 16th and the 17th 
now matches these newly available observations, while still being 
consistent with the impact in Key West and the sparse ship reports. 
The Fort Jefferson observations also indicate a weaker system than
the 90 kt hurricane originally estimated, even after accounting for
the hurricane's weaker side impacting the fort.  Since the only data 
for hurricane conditions in this system were observed on the 15th and
16th and that this system is not recorded as making landfall anywhere
on the Gulf coast, a weakening to below hurricane force is deduced 
for the 17th.


1861/02 - 2006 REVISION:

01875 08/13/1861 M= 5  2 SNBR=  62 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
01875 08/13/1861 M= 5  2 SNBR=  62 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=1                     
                                                    *

01880 08/13*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*205 700  40    0*210 715  40    0*
01885 08/14*215 730  50    0*220 745  60    0*225 760  70    0*229 774  70    0*
01890 08/15*232 787  80    0*235 799  80    0*237 808  80    0*239 815  80    0*
01895 08/16*242 820  80    0*246 825  80    0*250 830  70    0*254 835  70    0*
01900 08/17*258 840  60    0*262 845  60    0*266 850  50    0*270 856  50    0*
01905 HRBFL1                                                                    

As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did
cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental
U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0".

1861/02 - 2011 REVISION:

01875 08/13/1861 M= 5  2 SNBR=  62 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=1                     
01880 08/13*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*205 700  40    0*210 715  40    0*
01885 08/14*215 730  50    0*220 745  60    0*225 760  70    0*229 774  70    0*
01890 08/15*232 787  80    0*235 799  80    0*237 808  80    0*239 815  80    0*
01895 08/16*242 820  80    0*246 825  80    0*250 830  70    0*254 835  70    0*
01900 08/17*258 840  60    0*262 845  60    0*266 850  50    0*270 856  50    0*
01905 HRBFL1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
2-8/16/1861    0000Z 24.2N  82.0W   70kt  1    ---   (970mb)   BFL1
2-8/16/1861    0000Z 24.2N  82.0W   70kt  1    ---   (978mb)   BFL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind of 80 kt
for this hurricane as it bypassed the Florida Keys with maximum sustained winds 
to impact the Keys of about 70 kt.  970 mb was listed in the U.S. Hurricane 
record as the central pressure at the time of closest approach.  This value
is a typographic error as the southern pressure-wind relationship
suggests 978 mb landfall in Texas as an 80 kt hurricane.  This estimate of 
central pressure at U.S. landfall is now included into the U.S. hurricane 
landfall listing.  This is not explicitly added into HURDAT because this 
central pressure value is an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed 
value.

********************************************************************************

1861/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. 
Pressure reading of 958 mb not in hurricane's center (on 12 UTC,
30th of August) suggests winds of at least 91 kt from the northern
wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track.  Storm judged
to have reached hurricane force based upon this pressure reading and
wind observations from the ships "Harvest Queen" and "Marianne".

********************************************************************************

1861/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point.  Storm determined to have reached
hurricane force based upon observations from the ship "David G. Wilson".

********************************************************************************

1861/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland 
winds over NE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model.  Storm determined to have reached hurricane force
based upon observations from the ship "Virgina Ann".  Hurricane is also 
known as the "Equinoctial Storm" as described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) 
and Ludlum (1963). 

********************************************************************************

1861/06:  Have extended the storm out four additional days as was suggested 
in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) writeup to the 9th based upon the ship
"Wellington".

********************************************************************************


1861/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************


1861/08:  Have started track over Gulf of Mexico instead of over Florida
as was drawn in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Inland winds
over Florida and NE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's
(1995) inland decay model.  Values of 1000mb and 999mb give winds of
49 and 50 kt, respectively, utilizing the northern wind-pressure
relationship;  50 kt is used in the best track.  Storm is determined to
have reached hurricane force based upon observations from Hatteras Inlet
and the ship "Honduras".  Hurricane is also known as the "Expedition 
Hurricane" as described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) and Ludlum (1963).

********************************************************************************

1862/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  

********************************************************************************

1862/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
reports.

********************************************************************************

1862/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
reports.

********************************************************************************

1862/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************

1862/05:  The only major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis 
was to add an additional half day on the 17th to accommodate the end 
of the track.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity
based upon several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1862/06 - 2003 ADDITION:

02126 11/22/1862 M= 4  6 SNBR=  73 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
02127 11/22*105 795  60    0*105 795  60    0*105 795  60    0*105 795  60    0
02128 11/23*105 795  60    0*105 795  60    0*105 795  60    0*105 795  60    0
02129 11/24*105 795  60    0*105 795  60    0*105 796  50    0*105 797  50    0
02130 11/25*105 798  40    0*105 800  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
02131 TS

A new storm (possibly hurricane intensity) was uncovered from the 
meteorological register kept at Aspinwall, Panama (9 22 53.7N
79 52 58.2 W) by A.F. Holmes, Acting Master Navigating Officer
of the U.S. Steamer "James Adger", part of the voluntary Smithsonian
Institute network.  (Thanks to Mike Chenoweth for providing the 
information for this new storm.)  Below are the temperature,
wind direction/force, cloud cover (in tenths), and rainfall from
November 20-25, 1862 (unfortunately, the barometric record appears
to be defective): 

Date  Temp. Temp. Temp.  Wind  Wind  Wind  Cloud Cloud Cloud  Rainfall
      0700L 1400L 2100L  0700L 1400L 2100L 0700L 1400L 2100L 

20    74.7F 80.6F 76.3F  S   1 W   2 SE  1   9     6     3     0.12"
21    74.6F 79.4F 77.0F  SE  1 NW  2 WNW 2   8     8    10     0.12"
22    75.2F 78.6F 76.9F  NW  7 NNW 7 NW  6  10    10    10     3.45"
23    76.3F 78.0F 78.8F  NNE 6 NNW 5 NW  5  10    10    10     6.18"
24    78.8F 78.3F 77.5F  NNW 6 WNW 4 WxN 5  10    10    10     0.64"
25    75.4F 76.9F 77.0F  WxN 3 WxN 3 WxN 4  10    10    10     0.61"

Comments:
22 November - At 2a.m. gale commenced blowing from NW. Heavy
   sea came in suddenly.
23 November - Gale continued, more sea than yesterday.
24 November - Gale continues.
25 November - Gale over.

Smithsonian Wind Force Scale
1 - Very light breeze  2 mph
2 - Gentle breeze      4 mph
3 - Fresh breeze      12 mph
4 - Strong breeze     25 mph
5 - High breeze       35 mph
6 - Gale              45 mph
7 - Strong gale       60 mph
8 - Violent gale      75 mph
9 - Hurricane         90 mph
10 - Most violent    100 mph

Based upon this, a strong tropical storm was centered to the northeast
of this location from the 22nd to the 25th with weakening late on the
24th and on the 25th.  No apparent motion of the storm could be detected
until late on the 24th and on the 25th when a slow westward drift is
indicated by the change in wind direction to more westerly.

********************************************************************************

1863/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
the ships "Francis B. Cutting" and "Rapid". 

********************************************************************************



1863/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
the ships "American Congress" and "Herzogin".

********************************************************************************

1863/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Ship with central pressure observation of 975 mb gives 83 kt with the 
northern wind-pressure relationship, utilizing 80 kt in best track.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports
from several ships.

********************************************************************************

1863/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon report from
the ship "Dolphin".

********************************************************************************

1863/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
reports.

********************************************************************************

1863/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Inland winds over NE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland 
decay model.  The best track provided appears to describe the full life 
cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until
its dissipation below tropical storm strength).

********************************************************************************

1863/07:  A 36 hr track was achieved for this storm - Partagas and
Diaz (1995a) had kept the storm stationary.  Inland winds over Mexico 
reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model with an
accelerated decay rate used to account for enhanced topography.

********************************************************************************

1863/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  

********************************************************************************

1863/09 - 2003 ADDITION:

02341 09/29/1863 M= 3  9 SNBR=  82 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
02342 09/29*285 957  60    0*289 953  60    0*293 948  60    0*296 943  50    0
02343 09/30*298 937  50    0*300 931  50    0E301 925  40    0E302 919  40    0
02344 10/01E303 913  40    0E304 907  40    0E305 901  40    0E306 895  40    0
02345 TS

Prof. Cary Mock and Mr. David Roth have uncovered substantial evidence
for a previously undocumented tropical storm that made landfall in
Texas/Louisiana in the United States.  The storm did exhibit some
baroclinic characteristics at landfall in Texas/Louisiana, but was
retained as a tropical cyclone until 12Z on the 30th.  A peripheral 
pressure of 999 mb (around 12Z on the 29th) suggests winds of at least 
47 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen 
for the best track.  Below are excerpts from the Houston weather 
observer's record along with newspaper accounts of the storm's impacts.

Houston weather observer record, September/October 1863
(Temperatures taken at sunrise, 1-3pm, and sunset.  Pressure, winds and
clouds were monitored 4-5 times a day between sunrise and sunset.  
Pressure given in inches - 30" for values between .01 to .09 and 29"
for values between .49 and .96.  Winds are given between 0 [calm] and
6 [violent storm].  Clouds are given in tenths.)

Date Temperatures   Pressure             Winds            Clouds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/26 62/90/80       .07/.09/.04/.05      NE2/S3/S2/S3     3/6/7/8
9/27 69/83/78       .03/.04/.01/.96      E2/SE2/S4/S2     10/10/10/10
9/28 70/69/66       .84/.86/.76/.71/.63  E3/E4/SE5/E5/E6  10/10/10/10/10
9/29 68/72/71       .50/.50/.50/.49/.53  NE3/E3/NE4/M/N3  8/8/10/10/9
9/30 68/71/71       .73/.81/.85/.89      N4/N5/N5/N5      9/10/10/9

"The Storm of the 28th and 29th much more severe at Galveston & East of 
Galveston than here.  At Sabine Pass wind took off limbs of trees.  At 
Washington but little wind but heavy rain.  At Velasco wind very high as 
on the coast generally.  Heaviest fall of water I remember in these times".  

From the _Tri-Weekly Telegraph_ published in in Houston, TX:

Friday October 2, 1863  

"SABINE PASS, Sept. 29 - This morning our forces captured a fine Yankee 
 schooner, the Manhassett, with her crew, consisting of seven men.  She was
 loaded with coal and was used as a tender to the blockading fleet.  The 
 heavy gale last night drove her in near the coast, seven miles below the Pass,
 and coming within range of one of our batteries, which at once prepared to 
 fire on her, she hoisted the white flag and surrendered.  Her stores are all
 safe in our hands."

"The late equinoctial storm has undoubtedly lashed the waves of the Gulf into 
 unusual commotion.  The federal fleet now cruising about will be truly 
 fortunate if they have escaped disaster from the fury of the elements.  
 Rarely in past years has such a storm occurred without more or
 less wrecks on the Louisiana and Texas coast."

October 14, 1863   
"The Fordache Fight
 Morgan's Ferry, Sept. 30, 1863 - ...On the night of the 28th September, our 
 forces crossed the Atchafalaya, at the same time that a 60 hours rain set in.
 Our troops bivouacked on the east bank of the Atchafalaya on that night, 
 under a drenching rain."

From the New Orleans _Picayune_:

Tuesday, September 29, 1863 
"The drouth (sic) still continues, but there are signs that it will not be 
 of much longer duration.  A change is much wished for in the city, as most of 
 the cisterns are empty, and the dust, when agitated, is very annoying, 
 especially to notable house-wives."

Wednesday, September 30, 1863
"Long wished for, come at last - the refreshing and welcome rain.  Now it has 
 commenced, the prospect is we shall have it in abundance."

Friday, October 2, 1863
"A gloomy and disagreeable day was yesterday - neither good for man nor beast.
 It was a day to incite one to commit suicide - uncomfortably wet and warm, 
 and very debilitating.  Well, a few days ago we were praying for rain.  Now 
 we sigh for fair weather.  How unsatisfied and inconsistent men are! and 
 women too, for that matter.  For instance, a few days ago, house-wives
 were complaining that there was no water for the family washing.  Now they 
 complain that though there is an abundance of water, they cannot get the 
 clothes dry when they are washed.  According to present appearances,
 this will be a difficulty to be overcome only by ingenuity and good 
 management for some time to come.  'The rain it raineth every day' is
 likely to be the cry for lo, many days.  Well, 'Man never is, but always to 
 be, blest.'"

"The blustering norther that came upon us yesterday, although not the 
 pleasantest of visitors, was decidly (sic) welcome as the successor
 of the disagreeable weather that immediately preceded it.  We have fairly 
 entered on the few weeks of changeable weather - now hot, now cold, and 
 alternately dry and wet - usual at this season.  It is trying to the 
 constitution and productive of sickness, and those who have any care for 
 their health will be careful to avoid all unnecessary exposure."

It was hot and uncomfortable again in New Orleans on the 2nd. 

********************************************************************************



1864/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from the ship "Hattie Eaton".

********************************************************************************

1864/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************

1864/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Inland winds over Central America reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model with an accelerated decay rate used to account for
enhanced topography.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon observations from Martinique and Belize.

********************************************************************************

1864/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Storm analyzed to be stationary for four days duration.  An alternative
solution to being stationary for four days is that the storm completed
a tight (but slow) loop during this time.  However, the data available
does not provide enough detail to fully document that a loop actually
occurred.

********************************************************************************

1864/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several
ship observations.

********************************************************************************

1865/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************

1865/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************

1865/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. 

********************************************************************************


1865/04:  This hurricane was originally listed as #5 in 1865 in Partagas and 
Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Added additional day at end of the track over 
Louisiana and Arkansas to provide a reasonable decay of the hurricane.  Inland 
winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from Guadeloupe and Louisiana.  This system is known as the "Sabine River-
Lake Calcasieu Storm" in Ludlum (1963).

1865/04 - 2011 REVISION:

02685 09/06/1865 M= 9  4 SNBR=  92 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
02690 09/06*160 555  90    0*160 567  90    0*160 580  90    0*160 593  90    0*
02695 09/07*161 608  90    0*162 624  90    0*165 638  90    0*167 655  90    0*
02700 09/08*167 675  90    0*170 695  90    0*171 710  90    0*174 724  90    0*
02705 09/09*177 736  90    0*180 750  90    0*185 763  90    0*189 774  90    0*
02710 09/10*192 788  90    0*199 801  90    0*202 815  90    0*207 826  90    0*
02715 09/11*210 839  90    0*212 851  90    0*219 865  90    0*226 876  90    0*
02720 09/12*231 884  90    0*237 894  90    0*246 904  90    0*254 911  90    0*
02725 09/13*263 918  90    0*271 924  90    0*281 929  90    0*292 933  90    0*
02730 09/14*304 935  70    0*316 935  50    0*328 933  40    0*340 930  40    0*
02735 HR LA2CTX1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-9/13/1865    2100Z 29.8N  93.4W   90kt  2    ---   (969mb)   LA2,CTX1
4-9/13/1865    2100Z 29.8N  93.4W   90kt  2    ---   (965mb)   LA2,CTX1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 90 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb - 
for a 90 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1865/05:  This storm was originally listed as #7 in 1865 in Partagas and
Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No major changes from their analysis.  No track is 
available, only one point.  

********************************************************************************

1865/06:  This hurricane was originally listed as #6 in 1865 in Partagas and 
and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No major changes from their analysis.  No track 
available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon observations from the ship "Teresa".

********************************************************************************

1865/07:  This hurricane was originally listed as #8 in 1865 in Partagas and 
Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Havana central pressure observation of 975 mb 
gives 83 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, utilizing 80 kt
in best track.  Inland winds over Cuba and Florida reduced via Kaplan and 
DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model.  Storm is determined to have reached 
hurricane status based upon numerous ship reports and observations taken in
Cuba.

1865/07 - 2003 REVISION:

02695 10/18/1865 M= 8  7 SNBR=  92 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
02695 10/18/1865 M= 8  7 SNBR=  94 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                                **

02700 10/18* 95 804  40    0* 97 804  40    0*100 805  40    0*102 806  40    0
02705 10/19*105 806  40    0*107 808  40    0*110 810  50    0*113 811  50    0
02710 10/20*118 813  50    0*123 814  50    0*129 816  60    0*137 818  60    0
02715 10/21*143 820  60    0*152 823  60    0*159 824  70    0*169 826  70    0
02720 10/22*179 828  80    0*189 830  80    0*200 830  90    0*212 829  90    0
02725 10/23*227 825  80  975*242 819  90    0*257 810  90    0*271 798  80    0
02725 10/23*226 826  80  975*238 821  90    0*250 814  90    0*265 802  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

02730 10/24*286 783  80    0*301 769  80    0*314 753  80    0*325 731  80    0
02730 10/24*282 788  80    0*299 772  80    0*314 753  80    0*325 731  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***

02735 10/25*335 706  70    0*347 683  70    0*360 660  70    0*373 635  70    0
02740 HRBFL2CFL1


U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
7-10/23/1865$  0700Z 24.6N  81.7W   90kt  2     (969mb)   BFL2
7-10/23/1865$  1000Z 24.6N  81.7W   90kt  2     (969mb)   BFL2
               ****

7-10/23/1865$  1100Z 25.5N  81.2W   90kt  2     (969mb)   BFL2,CFL1
7-10/23/1865$  1400Z 25.4N  81.1W   90kt  2     (969mb)   BFL2,CFL1
               ****  ****   ****


Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami uncovered observations from
the U.S. military base Fort Jefferson west of Key West:

Fort Jefferson (24.7N, 82.8W):
Date       12Z    19Z    02Z 
10/20/1865 NE-2   NE-2   NE-2   "9AM-?, 1.60"
10/21/1865 NE-4   NE-4   NE-10
10/22/1865 NE-10  N-4    N-4    "Rain 11AM-?, 2.50"

Military Post Wind Force Scale
(values are estimates of the highest gusts)
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze  2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze      4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze      12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze     25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze       35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale              45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale       60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale      75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane         90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent    100 mph (87 kt)

These observations indicate that the hurricane's landfall over the
Florida Keys was somewhat later than the 07Z on the 23rd as 
originally estimated.  Based upon these data, the timing of the
track is adjusted back in time on the 23rd and 24th slightly.  This
allows for landfall to occur in the Keys around 10Z.


********************************************************************************

1865 - Additional Notes:  
1.  The tropical storm listed as #4 in 1865 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm 
did not actually exist.  Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported 
reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information.

********************************************************************************

1866/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon reports from Matagorda, Texas.

1866/01 - 2003 REVISION:

02685 07/15/1866 M= 1  1 SNBR=  93 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
02685 07/11/1866 M= 6  1 SNBR=  95 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
         **         *           **

(The 11th to the 14th are new to HURDAT.)
02686 07/11*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*280 873  90    0*280 878  90    0
02687 07/12*280 883  90    0*280 888  90    0*281 893  90    0*281 899  90    0
02688 07/13*281 905  90    0*281 911  90    0*282 917  90    0*282 923  90    0
02689 07/14*282 929  90    0*282 935  90    0*283 941  90    0*283 947  90    0

02690 07/15*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*285 965  90    0*  0   0   0    0
02690 07/15*284 953  90    0*285 959  90    0*285 965  90    0*286 971  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **                       *** ***  **

(The 16th is new to HURDAT.)
02691 07/16*286 977  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0

02695 HRBTX2

Analysis by Roth (1997a) provides additional information for this hurricane
which was previously listed as a "single-point" storm in HURDAT.  Roth writes:

"July 12-13th, 1866: A storm moved well off the coast of Louisiana. On the 
 11th at 28.5N 87.3W, a three-masted schooner was dismasted in heavy seas. 
 Winds "blew hard" at New Orleans for a few hours on the evening of the 12th. 
 Tides increased until daybreak the 13th.  Damage was seen at the Timbalier 
 Bay lighthouse. "Ugly, threatening weather" hit on the 12th. Three feet of 
 water surrounded the tower. Wave action knocked away two brick piers, as 24 
 hours of pounding surf broke against the lighthouse. The keeper became 
 spooked by the combination of weather condition and loneliness, and "promptly 
 resigned"."

Based upon this description, the track was extended back to the 11th for
this hurricane.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for 
inland winds over Texas.

1866/01 - 2011 REVISION:

02820 07/11/1866 M= 6  1 SNBR=  96 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
02825 07/11*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*280 873  90    0*280 878  90    0*
02830 07/12*280 883  90    0*280 888  90    0*281 893  90    0*281 899  90    0*
02835 07/13*281 905  90    0*281 911  90    0*282 917  90    0*282 923  90    0*
02840 07/14*282 929  90    0*282 935  90    0*283 941  90    0*283 947  90    0*
02845 07/15*284 953  90    0*285 959  90    0*285 965  90    0*286 971  60    0*
02850 07/16*286 977  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
02855 HRBTX2                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-7/15/1866    1200Z 28.5N  96.5W   90kt  2    ---   (969mb)   BTX2
1-7/15/1866    1200Z 28.5N  96.5W   90kt  2    ---   (965mb)   BTX2
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as a 90 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb - 
for a 90 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1866/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Inland winds over Mexico reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model with an accelerated rate of decay to account for
enhanced topography.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon observations from the ship "A. E. Patterson" and
the Fortress Monroe.

********************************************************************************

1866/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
ships "Messina" and "Robert Wing".

********************************************************************************

1866/04:  Major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis is to
not assume that the hurricane was stationary for three days at 15N 
and 29.5W.  Only one six-hourly position/intensity is provided on 12 UTC
of the 18th.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based
upon ship reports from the "Iddo Kimball".

********************************************************************************


1866/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. 

********************************************************************************


1866/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Central pressure observation from Nassau with 938 mb gives 120 kt with the
southern wind-pressure relationship, which is used in the best track.
Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon
this central pressure measurement as well as several ship reports.  This
system is known as the "Great Nassau Hurricane of 1866" (Ludlum 1963).

********************************************************************************

1866/07:  Major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis is to
extend track back one day to the 28th based upon discussion in their
analysis.  Inland winds over New England reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's 
(1995) inland decay model.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane 
status based upon observations at Fortune Island, Bahamas.

1866/07 - 2011 REVISION:

03040 10/28/1866 M= 3  7 SNBR= 102 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0 L
03040 10/29/1866 M= 2  7 SNBR= 102 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0 L
         **         *                               *

(The 28th is removed from HURDAT.)
03045 10/28*210 740  80    0*220 745  80    0*235 750  80    0*255 753  80 0*

03050 10/29*275 756  70    0*295 758  70    0*315 758  70    0*337 754  70 0*
03050 10/29*  0   0   0    0*295 758  50    0*315 758  50    0*337 754  60 0*
            *** ***  **               **               **               **

03055 10/30*360 748  60    0*385 744  60    0*413 740  50    0*445 730  40 0*
03055 10/30*360 748  60    0E385 744  60    0E413 740  50    0E445 730  40 0*
                            *                *                *
03060 HR
03060 TS
      **

U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date          Time   Lat    Lon    Max  States
                                    Wind Affected

7-10/30/1866    0800Z  39.5   74.3    60     NJ
(Removed as U.S. Tropical Storm, as it made landfall while extratropical.)

This system is revised based upon new information provided by Mike Chenoweth.  
While Mr. Chenoweth recommended complete removal of this system from HURDAT, it 
was decided to revert this track back to that originally proposed by 
Fernandez-Partagas, with no extension into the Bahamas.  The data is rather 
ambiguous for complete removal.  On one side, the data provided by Mr. Chenoweth 
for the southeastern U. S. are hard to reconcile with the gales and apparent 
circulation documented by Fernandez-Partagas.  On the other hand, the data from 
Norfolk is not consistent with a low passing offshore, which means either the 
low off the southeastern U. S. coast tracked much farther west than suggested 
by Fernandez-Partagas or the reports were influenced by a separate low.  The 
observations at Georgetown, South Carolina suggest that whatever low was off 
the southeastern U. S. coast was east of the oncoming cold front and thus may 
well have had some tropical characteristics.  The temperature data for New 
Bedford, Massachusetts indicates that the cyclone became extratropical prior 
reaching New England.  The complete recommendation provided by Mr. Chenoweth 
is included below.

From the reanalysis’ metadata page:
> 1866/07:  Major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis is to
> extend track back one day to the 28th based upon discussion in their
> analysis.  Inland winds over New England reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's
> (1995) inland decay model.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
> status based upon observations at Fortune Island, Bahamas.

The last sentence above is a reference to Fernandez-Partagas and Diaz (1995), 
storms of 1865-1870, page 30. A ship passed by Fortune Island on 30 October and 
reported that the island had been destroyed by a hurricane on the previous day. 
The account was published in the New York Times on 18 November based on a 
(probable telegraphic) report from Baltimore on 17 November from the ship that 
had arrived in port with the news.

NEW INFORMATION

The Nassau Guardian newspaper is complete for 1866 and makes no mention of severe 
weather anywhere in the Bahamas in late October. There was extensive coverage of 
the hurricane of 30 September to 02 October throughout the Bahamas, including an 
account of the hurricane at the south side of Fortune Island on the night of 30 
September and 01 October in the 20 October issue of the newspaper.

The report of an October hurricane is clearly a garbled account and Fortune Island 
was destroyed by a hurricane at the end of September.

Weather reports from Oglethorpe Barracks (Savannah), GA, Hilton Head and 
Wilkinsville, SC, Wilson and Statesville, NC, Fortress Monroe and Norfolk Navy 
Hospital, VA and Annapolis and Baltimore, MD (among other locations) indicate that 
the late October storm was most likely extratropical and underwent a strong 
development off the mid-Atlantic coast. Wind data from the two Norfolk stations are 
often at variance but otherwise the wind data from land stations appears to be of 
good quality.

St. Stephens, New Brunswick [HMS Cordelia Logbook]
Oct 30 noon 49 SE6 30.10 Midnight 47 SE8 29.83
Oct 31 noon 53 S1 29.88 2pm SW2 4pm 53 NW1 29.95
Halifax, Nova Scotia [HMS Duncan Logbook]
Oct 30 noon 47 SE4-5 30.50
New Bedford, MA 7a, 2p, 9p ob times
29 October 45-51-54 ese2-se2-se3 30.37-30.29-30.21
30 October 58-62-52 se5-s4-nw1 29.81-29.53-29.64
31 October 42-54-40 w1-wxn2-nw1 29.81-29.87-30.06
Annapolis, MD 7a, 2p, 9p ob times
29 October 58-65-62 s2-s2-s3 30.19-0.01-29.83
30 October 57-57-48 n2-w2-nw1 29.57-29.4-29.94
31 October 39-51-43 w2-nw3-nw2 30.05-30.12-30.27
Norfolk Navy Yard Sunrise, 9am, 3pm, 9pm
29 October 68-69-66-66 se3-se3-sw4-sw5 29.96-29.94-29.85-29.78
30 October 66-65-60-59 w1-w4-wnw5-nnw4 29.62-29.62-29.60-29.60
31 October 50-51-51-50 nnw5-nnw5-nw3-nw3
Fortress Monroe, VA 7a, 2p, 9p
29 October 60-65-61 e3-e3-ne6 30.45-30.25-9.75
30 October 65-66-55 ne2-n1-n5 29.75-29.75-30.00
31 October 48-52-45 n3-n1-nw2 30.20-30.20-30.35
Wilson, NC 3541N 7747W 7a, 2p, 9p
29 October 58-70-69 e1-s2-e2
30 October 64-72-54 sw1-nw1-w1
31 October 42-54-44 nw1-n1-n1
Georgetown, SC
Oct 28 No temp NE1-E2-E1 clear-fine-cloudy
Oct 29 No temp SE5-SE5-S2 rain-rain-rain 2.5" of rain
Oct 30 MM-69-56 SW1-W3-W1 fine-clear-clear
Hilton Head, SC
29 October 68-76-66 se4-se2-sw1
30 October 62-68-56 w1-nw2-nw3
31 October 49-57-40 nw3-nw2-n2
Savannah, GA
29 October 70-76-68 s-s-ne
30 October 65-78-70 ne-ne-ne
31 October 60-72-65 ne-ne-ne
Bermuda (noon ob)
Oct 29 74 NE3 30.040 fine wx
Oct 30 73 SE4 29.945 cloudy

PROPOSED CHANGES TO STORM SEVEN OF 1866

The data indicate that a coastal low, possibly forming off of South Carolina and 
Georgia moved up the coast as a cold high retreated away from New England. A cold 
front passed through the Carolinas on the night of 29-30 October and relatively 
mild air wrapped around the coastal low in the Norfolk area as it deepened rapidly 
in this region of the coast. Reports of gales at sea are consistent with an 
extratropical scenario. Although a tropical component is always a possibility, the 
available ship reports are not convincing enough given the weight of evidence from 
land stations and from searching for additional newspaper shipping account reports 
made by this author which have failed to find evidence to support a tropical component 
to this storm.

Regarding the possibility that the system began as a tropical cyclone then evolved 
into an extratropical low is the following discussion:  The wind shift at Georgetown, 
SC is not consistent with a tropical cyclone passing by to its east; likewise, the 
wind field from the Virginia and NC observations would suggest a frontal boundary by 
the morning of 30 October lying between Norfolk and Wilson. A large high pressure area 
retreated as the low came up the coast but it seems like the initial disturbance came 
across the SE US and deepened/formed off the SC coast and then moved NNE 
into southern New England where it was clearly an extratropical system as 
F-P & Diaz suggested. Ludlum's sparse documentation also suggests he had 
doubts about the storm's existence. I do not believe we have sufficient 
evidence for a tropical cyclone especially given the absence of any storm in 
lower latitudes.  Also, ship reports from the brigs G.W. Barter and Eveline 
do not mention rainfall or storms or any bad weather other than gales and if 
they had so, this would have made me more inclined to consider the 
possibility of a subtropical depression or storm forming north of the 
Bahamas and east of SC. The ships also do not mention having "laid to" so 
they continued moving (at whatever speed) so their coordinates may be the 
location where they initially encountered gales but the weather does not 
necessarily correspond to a fixed point and covers an indeterminate period 
of time on the stated day.]

Given the absence of the tropical connection from the discounting of the Fortune Island 
report as a garble of the September hurricane, it is recommended that storm seven be 
removed from HURDAT.


********************************************************************************

1866 - Additional Notes:  
1.  The tropical storm listed as #8 in 1866 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm 
did not actually exist.  Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported 
reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information.  It is likely 
that this case was confused with storm 1867/09, which hit at the exact same 
place at exactly the same time of year.
2.  The tropical storm listed as #9 in 1866 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm 
did not actually exist.  Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported 
reference to it in Tannehill (1938) and Dunn and Miller (1960), but no other 
information.  It is likely that this case was actually storm 1866/01.

********************************************************************************

1867/01 - 2003 ADDITION:

02901 06/21/1867 M= 3  1 SNBR= 102 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
02902 06/21*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*295 800  50    0*303 801  60    0
02903 06/22*311 800  60    0*318 799  70    0*325 798  70    0*332 796  60    0
02904 06/23*339 794  50    0*345 792  40    0*350 790  40    0*355 788  40    0
02905 HR SC1

This is a new hurricane that has been uncovered by the work of Prof. Cary 
Mock at the University of South Carolina.  The information that he provided 
(included in total below) shows that a Category 1 hurricane made landfall
in South Carolina.  As the storm made landfall just to the east of 
Charleston and the city received approximately 60 kt of winds (based 
upon wind-caused damage) while on the weak side of storm, peak intensity
is judged to be about 70 kt at landfall occurring between Charleston
and Georgetown.

Here are excerpts from local papers that Prof. Mock was able to obtain:

Charleston Daily Courier, Monday, June 24: 
	THE WEATHER. - The heavy and continuous rains from Wednesday last, 
reported in Saturday's Courier, culminated Friday night and Saturday 
morning in the heaviest rains and one of the severest gales witnessed here 
for several years.  On Friday night the shipping at the wharves had to be 
doubly secured, and between nine and ten o'clock, Saturday morning, the 
wind seemed to reach its highest, blowing almost a perfect hurricane from 
the Northeast, for nearly two hours.  Its effects at sea, we fear, have 
been disastrous.  The harbor presented a very black and terrible appearance.  
In the city a number of wharves sustained considerable damage, houses 
were unroofed, chimneys blown down, trees torn up by their roots, and 
large branches blown from others, blocking up streets and sidewalks.  The 
tin roof of the New Custom House on East Bay, near Market-street, was 
blown off and carried by the wind to the corner of Cumberland and East 
Bay, a distance of between three and four hundred feet.  The tin was 
afterwards removed by the Custom House laborers into the Custom House 
yard.  Two large derricks on the South side of the building were also 
blown down, crushing in their fall a number of the beautifully cut and 
costly cap and cave stones, besides killing a cow belonging to Mrs. 
Jenkins.  The steamer Huron, lying at the Custom House Wharf, was 
overflowed and sunk.  The gale moderated Saturday afternoon, and on Sunday 
the skies had again become clear.
	We learn from Dr. George S. Pelzer, City Registrar, that the fall 
of rain from Wednesday to Saturday inclusive, was seven and a half inches, 
three inches of which fell on Saturday.  This is said to have been the 
heaviest fall of rain since 1824.

Charleston Daily Courier, Monday, June 24:
Marine News:
	A GALE IN JUNE. - After some days of unsettled weather, accompanied
 with rain, the wind commenced blowing a heavy gale from the Northeast at 
an early hour on Saturday, and about seven to eight o'clock it had 
increased to the force of an equinoctial blow, but moderated about midday. 
 The shipping and wharves being generally in fair order, got off with 
little damage, the injuries being quite unimportant.  The steamers Pilot 
Bay, from Savannah, and Dictator, from Florida, arrived safely on Sunday, 
without injury.  The Dictator experienced the blow on her passage from 
Fernandina to Savannah, and had a part of it after she anchored in 
Savannah River.  She reports the wind from North to Northwest, with a very 
heavy sea.  A brig, name unknown, had dragged ashore near Tybee.

Charleston Daily Courier, Tuesday, June 25:  
	THE WEATHER. - After four days of rain and wind, the sun shone out 
beautifully yesterday, imparting new life and hope to Nature and her 
children.  What damage has been done to the crops we are not yet 
sufficiently informed to speak with certainty.  There is reason to apprehend 
that the cotton and corn in the low country, at least, have been seriously 
injured, and there is little doubt that the whole rice crop on Cooper River 
has been largely, if not entirely destroyed.  So far as we have been able to 
learn, the wind-storm prevailed only immediately on the coast, though the 
rain fell continuously three days in most of the Districts in the State.  We 
hope to receive more detailed intelligence to-day.

Charleston Mercury, Monday, June 24:
Marine News.
SAVANNAH, June 23. - The brig W.H. Parks was blown ashore on Tybee, during 
the gale of yesterday.  It is supposed that she will get off.

Charleston Mercury, Monday, June 24:
DANGEROUS RUINS. - During the gale on Saturday the walls of Tobias' old 
building, at the corner of Vendue Range and East Bay, were rocked to and 
fro to such a degree that their fall was momentarily expected...

Charleston Mercury, Monday, June 24:
THE GREAT STORM. - DAMAGE DONE THE TREES, WHARVES, THE BUILDINGS, AND THE 
CITY CROPS. - The storm of rain which has been passing over the city for 
more than four days reached its height on Saturday, and was then accompanied
by a storm of wind which might fully be termed a hurricane.  Such a 
storm at this season has not been known in the memory of citizens who have 
resided here for nearly a century, and the last storm which equaled it in 
power and fury took place in the Fall of 1854.  In the city the amount and 
value of injury done cannot be well estimated, but a few particulars will 
enable our readers to judge for themselves.
	Trees were blown down in every direction.  On Orange-street a tree 
one yard in diameter was uprooted, and all the fruit and ornamental trees 
throughout the city have been damaged.  The grape vines suffered particularly,
and all of the corn in the various garden lots has been blown down 
almost without exception.
	The tin roof of the new Custom House was rolled up by the wind and 
carried by it to the corner of Cumberland-street, and the derricks in 
front of the Custom House were blown down, killing a cow in their fall.  A 
portion of the roof of the South Carolina Railroad freight depot was 
rolled up, but secured and fastened down before any damage had been done 
to the building or its contents.
	The roof of the shed on Brown's wharf was damaged, the roof of 
that on Kerr's wharf was also damaged, and some little damage was done to 
the roof of Atlantic wharf.
	The bathing house was injured;  three breaches were made in the 
East Battery, and an iron stand near the corner of Church and Broad 
streets were forced to the ground.
	Yet, whatever the damage done in the city, it will be nothing in 
comparison with that done in the country districts.  In another column 
will be found some account of the injury done by the rains alone, and we 
await with many misgivings, the accounts of the ravages of the great storm 
of June 22, 1867.

Samuel Porcher Gaillard (Sumter Dist.), June 22:  Thermometer at 5 A.M. 70, 
12 N 65, 9 PM 60.  Rain all night and ceased about daylight at half past 
6 A.M. began again & [never ceased] at times very hard up to this time 9 P.M. 
has not ceased.  Wind & clouds from N. East from 12 N Wind ????

David Golightly Harris (Spartanburg), June 22:  Rain... The land was 
entirely too wet.  This evening it is raining again   June 23 - Rain.  All 
last night there was a constant gentile rain.  It has been raining 
incessantly to day (11 o'clock) and no prospect of its ceasing.  Much fear 
is entertained that wheat will be injured in the shock.  None has been 
threshed yet & no prospect of suitable weather for the business.  This is a 
gloomy Sunday   June 24 - Rain.  Rain.  Rain.

Jacob Schirmer (Charleston):  June 22nd - Weather the past week has been 
almost one Continuous Rain and that in torrents and this morning, 
something of a Severe Gale, and quite cool.  Great fears are entertained 
that our staple crops have suffered very materially.

William J. Ball (Limerick Plantation):  June 19-22 - Heavy & Continuous 
Rain, Heaviest Freshet since 1837

Elias Horry (Georgetown):  June 22 - Gale

Hilton Head weather record:    June 22nd - 7am:SE4, 2pm:NE4, 9pm:NE4, 
2.04" precipitation.  (The numbers indicate force with a scale from 0 to 6.  
0 indicates calm and 6 indicates a violent storm.)

Glennie weather record, Georgetown, SC:  June 22nd - Sunrise:NE6-very
heavy rain, 2pm:E6-rain/gale, 9pm:E2-showery. 

Statesville NC weather record:  June 22 (7/2/9) - E4 E4 E4... rain started 
at 8 pm    June 23 - rain ended at 11 am... total 2 inches for storm...
E4 E4 E4

The Daily News and Herald (Savannah), June 24, p. 3:
The Gale of Saturday Morning
	One of the most terrific gales that has ever passed over the city 
since 1854, occurred on Saturday morning last.  It commenced at half-past 
six o'clock.  At seven it was at its height, destroying beautiful shade 
trees, carrying away awnings, portions of tin roofs gutters under the eaves 
of houses, conductors on the sides of buildings, window shutters, etc.
	The steamer Gen. Berry, lying moored to the wharf at Capt. Rufus P. 
Hawkes' ship yard, opposite Abercorn street, parted her fastenings and was 
driven to the Savannah shore of the river.  No damage was done to her.
	The steamer Annie, lying at the Hutchinson Island shore of the 
Savannah river, at the pilings opposite West Broad street, had her sails, 
which were chewed up, blown into ribbons, and her sides, which are torn, 
chafed by coming in contact with the pilings to which she is moored.
	On the Thunderbold Road a frame two-story building, in the course 
of erection for Mr. Frederick A. Schultz by Bostock & Hobson, was blown down.
	A tree, during the gale, fell at the southwest corner of Indian and 
West Broad streets, carrying away the brick fence of the Guerard buildings.  
Further up Indian street, a large tree fell on a building owned by 
Mrs. Farry, crushing in the roof.  On Bryan street, a tree fell against the 
residence of Mrs. Sarah Puder, crushing in the windows of the second story.
	Messrs. Wylly and Meinhard's building, on the south side of Broughton 
street, had a portion of its tin roof blown away.
	At Mr. Maupu's farm on the White Bluff Road, had several trees 
prostrated, breaking down his fences, which were newly erected.
	Up to the hour of writing we have not heard of any accidents.
	The crops in every portion of this county have greatly suffered, 
although we are hopeful that the destruction is not so great as is 
apprehended.

The Daily News and Herald (Savannah), June 24, p. 2:
	THE WEATHER - We have never experienced more unpleasant and 
depressing weather than that which has been prevailing hereabouts for the 
last five days, and we regret to learn that the continued heavy rains have 
thrown a deep gloom upon the countenances of planters in this section.

New York Times, Marine Intelligence, July 1:  
Brig, Alex Milliken - June 21 and 22, had a very heavy N.E. gale;  split and 
lost sails, and lost deck-load of molasses.

New York Times, Marine Intelligence, June 30:
Brig Agnes (Br) - June 21, lat. 30 12, lon. 79 18, had a heavy gale from 
S.E. to N.E., and back to S.E., with increased violence, with high sea 
running, sprung a leak, lost one boat, stove bulwarks, started headrails, &c.

New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 5:
BRIG W H PARKS, which was blown ashore at Tybee during the recent heavy 
gale, and from her position was considered as being virtually lost and only 
worthy of abandonment, was got off 30th ult, sustaining but little damage, 
and as she was fully repaired.

New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 4:
SCHR MARTHA ANN, McCormick, which sailed from Charleston some days since 
for New York, with a cargo of lumber, returned to Charleston on Saturday 
last, having experienced heavy gales on the 21st and 22d June, off Cape 
Lookout, during which lost deck load, sprung a leak, split sails, and has 
sustained other damage.  She has put back to C for repairs.

New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 3:
BRIG HENRY LAURENS,... for New York, before reported put into Charleston 
28th ult. leaky, reports June 19 off Sand Key Light, coast of Florida, 
experienced heavy blows, varying from NE to SE, with short cross seas, 
causing the vessel to labor and sprung a leak;  on the 22d, had heavy 
gales from the south, with short head sea, the vessel making water badly...

New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 2:
BARK J CUMMING (Br), Hookway, at Charleston from Newport... June 22, when 
near Charleston, experienced a severe gale from the northeast to northwest 
in which lost two lower topsails, split other sails, and caused the bark to 
leak...

New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 2:
SCHR FOAMING SEA, North, at Charleston, from Baltimore on the 22nd ult, off 
Cape Romain, experienced a severe eastern gale, and had part of the bulwarks 
carried away... flying jib, and sustained other damage.

New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 1:
BRIG WM SPARK, of Philadelphia, parted her chains in a NE gale June 22, and 
went ashore Tybee Island.

From the _Wadesboro Argus_, North Carolina:  
On Sunday [June 23] last this immediate section was visited by another heavy 
and destructive rain storm, heavier, it is said to have been, than those 
mentioned by us a week or two ago.  For three hours, from 8 to 11 A.M., the 
rain fell in torrents, beating down small grain not yet cut, also corn and 
cotton, and washing lands.  We hear of great destruction on all sides of us in 
consequence of the creeks and branches being unusually swelled, and of large 
quantities of wheat in the shock, left in the low grounds, floated off, and 
fences swept away.

From the _Wilmington Dispatch_, North Carolina: 
The Wilmington Dispatch [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel],  July 2, speaking 
of the freshet in the Cape Fear:
	We learn that, in consequence of recent rains, the Cape Fear has 
risen thirty feet at Fayetteville, at which it stood when our informant left.  
But it was the general opinion that the volume of water poured out from the 
clouds within the last ten days had not yet affected the river, the present 
freshet being the result of the previous rains.

The Lincolnton Courier says of the rains of that region [from the Raleigh 
Weekly Sentinel, July 2]:
	The terrible rains that have fallen during the past week will ruin 
the Planting interest on low lands throughout this section of country.  
Reports received are truly distressing.

The Asheville News says of the late rains [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel, 
July 2]:
	On Sunday last the windows of heaven were opened and poured out 
another deluge of rain upon Asheville, almost as destructive as that we 
received a few weeks ago.  Gardens suffered considerably, and many of the 
new fences and bridges were washed off.  We have heard that in some places 
the wheat was injured.

From the _Asheville News_, North Carolina:  
On Sunday last the windows of heaven were opened and poured out another 
deluge of rain upon Asheville, almost as destructive as that we received a 
few weeks ago.  Gardens suffered considerably, and many of the new fences and 
and bridges were washed off.  We have heard that in some places the wheat was
injured.

The Wilmington Journal speaking of the damage done the crops in the Eastern 
Counties by the late rains says [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel, July 2]:
	The effect of the recent rains upon the crops in all the Eastern 
portion of the State has been most disastrous.  The damage sustained by 
planters in Brunswick, Bladen, New Hanover, Onslow, Dunlin, Sampson, 
Edgecombe, and all the Eastern counties, so far as heard from, has been 
very serious and almost irreparable.  The corn and cotton crop have 
received a most severe blow, while the rice crop in this section has been 
almost entirely ruined.  Along the line of the Cape Fear, and in fact in 
all the lowlands of the countries named, the damage is very apparent, and 
the pernicious results of the recent terrible rains will be long remembered.  
At no time could a more severe blow in this section befall us than at 
present, when our future prosperity so greatly depends upon an abundant 
yield.

Weekly North Carolina Standard (Raleigh),Wen. July 3, 1867, p. 3:  
Sunday was the hottest day we have had so far this year, the thermometer 
reaching 99 deg. in the shade.  It was also the first day since Sunday the 
16th in which there has not some rain, at least a few drops, fallen here in 
Raleigh.
	The amount of rain for the month has been enormous, measuring nine 
inches and a half in depth between the 16th and 27th, and over fourteen 
inches in all.

James Harvey Greenlee (McDowell Ct., NC):  June 22 - Cloud warm   June 23 - 
It rained all day  June 24 - Rained last night  creek quite flush... A wet 
day.

Weather observer data from Fort Monroe, VA, located near Norfolk: 
On June 23, it started to rain beginning at 4 pm and by 4:40 pm the next day 
it rained 1.95 inches.  Written comments indicate "Rain began in the night.  
Foggy & high winds during the day, Thunder & Lightning at night & Showers."  
Observations of winds at 7 am, 2 pm and 9 pm on the 23rd were E 1, E 2, and 
E 2 respectively, changing to SE 1, SE 2, and NE 1 the next day.  

********************************************************************************



1867/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis 
(was storm #1 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report).  Ship with a 
central pressure observation of 969 mb gives 83 kt with the northern
wind-pressure relationship, 80 kt is used in the best track. Storm is 
determined to have reached hurricane status based upon the above central
pressure measurement as well as several ship reports.  Storm is known
as the "Early August Offshore Hurricane of 1867" in Ludlum (1963).

********************************************************************************

1867/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #2 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report).  No 
track available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon observations from the ship "Suwanee".

********************************************************************************

1867/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #3 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Storm is 
determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations 
from the ship "Helen R. Cooper".

********************************************************************************

1867/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis 
(was storm #4 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report).  No 
track available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************

1867/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #5 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report).  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
observations.

********************************************************************************

1867/07:  Added a track for October 6-9th to database from Partagas
and Diaz's (1995a) writeup suggestion (was storm #6 originally in 
the Partagas and Diaz report).  Also moved track closer to 
Brownsville, Texas, as it appears that the town was in the western
eyewall.  Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's 
(1995) inland decay model.  Storm tide value of 7' from Ludlum (1963) for
Galveston, Texas.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon damage and storm tide observations from Texas and Louisiana.
System is known as the "Galveston Hurricane of 1867" in Ludlum (1963).

1867/07 - 2011 REVISION:

03220 10/02/1867 M= 8  7 SNBR= 109 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
03225 10/02*235 965  90    0*242 968  90    0*250 970  90    0*259 971  90    0*
03230 10/03*267 968  90    0*273 963  90    0*279 956  90    0*286 946  90    0*
03235 10/04*290 936  90    0*291 925  90    0*291 915  90    0*292 906  90    0*
03240 10/05*292 896  90    0*292 888  90    0*293 878  80    0*293 868  80    0*
03245 10/06*294 858  80    0*294 848  80    0*295 840  70    0*296 831  60    0*
03250 10/07*298 825  50    0*301 818  40    0*305 810  40    0*310 800  40    0*
03255 10/08*316 789  50    0*323 776  50    0*330 765  50    0*335 755  50    0*
03260 10/09*339 746  50    0*342 740  50    0*345 735  50    0*347 731  50    0*
03265 HRATX1CTX1 LA2AFL1                                                        

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
7-10/2/1867    1500Z 25.4N  97.1W   70kt  1    ---   (969mb)   ATX1
7-10/4/1867    1500Z 29.2N  91.0W   90kt  2    ---   (969mb)   LA2,CTX1
7-10/4/1867    1500Z 29.2N  91.0W   90kt  2    ---   (965mb)   LA2,CTX1
                                                      ***

7-10/6/1867    1500Z 29.6N  83.4W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AFL1
7-10/6/1867    1500Z 29.6N  83.4W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AFL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 90 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb - 
for a 90 kt hurricane.  The original assessment in HURDAT also analyzed 
a maximum sustained wind at landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane.  
This suggested a central pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico 
pressure-wind relationship.  The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind 
relationship for cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure 
is needed - 982 mb - for a 70 kt hurricane.  These new estimates of central 
pressure at U.S. landfall are now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall 
listing.  These are not explicitly added into HURDAT because these central 
pressure values are estimates, not observations or directly analyzed values.

********************************************************************************

1867/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #7 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report).  No 
track available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************

1867/09:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #8 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report).  Ship with 
central pressure observation of 952 mb gives 108 kt with the southern 
wind-pressure relationship, but since the RMW may have been on the 
order of 5 nmi, a higher wind of 120 kt is assigned in best track.  Storm
is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon the
above central pressure and destruction that occurred in the Virgin Islands 
and Puerto Rico.  Hurricane is also known as "San Narciso" for effects in 
Puerto Rico on October 29th.  The best track provided appears to describe 
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a 
tropical storm to its peak as a major hurricane until its dissipation 
below tropical storm strength).

1867/09 - 2003 REVISION:

03205 10/27/1867 M= 5  9 SNBR= 108 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
03205 10/27/1867 M= 5  9 SNBR= 110 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

03210 10/27*190 505  40    0*190 515  40    0*190 526  50    0*190 537  50    0
03215 10/28*190 550  60    0*190 563  60    0*190 577  70    0*191 592  80    0
03215 10/28*190 550  60    0*190 563  60    0*190 577  70    0*190 592  80    0
                                                               ***

03220 10/29*190 607  90    0*189 620 100    0*185 633 110    0*182 648 120  952
03220 10/29*190 607  90    0*189 620 100    0*186 633 110    0*184 648 100  952
                                              ***              ***     ***

03225 10/30*182 665 110    0*182 681 100    0*182 696 100    0*184 715  70    0
03225 10/30*183 665  80    0*182 681  70    0*182 696  80    0*184 715  60    0
            ***     ***              ***              ***               **

03230 10/31*186 735  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
03230 10/31*186 735  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
                     **

03235 HR 

Boose et al.'s (2003) analysis of hurricanes that made landfall in Puerto
Rico documented that this hurricane caused only Fujita-scale F1 damages in 
the eastern and central portions of the island, not the F3 destruction 
expected from a 120 kt Category 4 hurricane making landfall.  Additionally, 
E. Boose (2003, personal communication) suggested that the track may, 
instead of going over Puerto Rico, have skirted just to the north of the 
island.  However, after a re-review of the limited meteorological data 
available as well as the descriptive accounts from local reports at the 
time of the hurricane (J. Colon, 2003, personal communication) suggest that 
the hurricane did indeed cross the island from east to west, but as a 
substantially weaker system (Category 2 - 90 kt).  While good evidence
exists for major hurricane status farther east in the Virgin Islands with
the 952 mb central pressure, it is surmised that the hurricane began weakening
fairly rapidly thereafter - which would not be unusual for a late October
hurricane.  Winds are thus adjusted downward from the 29th to the 31st and
the track is slightly adjusted to better match a track crossing over
Fujardo, Caguas and Mayaguez in Puerto Rico.  This adjustment to Category 2
landfall in Puerto Rico is now consistent with descriptions of more intense
events (Category 4 - 1899, Category 3 - 1876, 1893, 1894) during the
second half of the 19th Century.

********************************************************************************


1868/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
reports.

********************************************************************************

1868/02:  No major alterations from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.

********************************************************************************

1868/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
ships "Mary E. Mangan" and "Haidee".

********************************************************************************

1868/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from multiple ship observations.

********************************************************************************

1869/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from the ships "Olaf Nicklesen" and "Prinze Frederik".

********************************************************************************

1869/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Inland winds over Texas reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model.  Storm determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon observations from the ship "Julia A. Rider" and from
central Texas.  The storm is also known as the "Lower Texas Coast 
Hurricane of 1869" in Ludlum (1963).

1869/02 - 2011 REVISION:

03465 08/16/1869 M= 2  2 SNBR= 117 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
03470 08/16*270 916  90    0*272 926  90    0*274 936  90    0*277 946  90    0*
03475 08/17*279 956  90    0*281 966  90    0*282 976  60    0*283 988  40    0*
03480 HRBTX2                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
2-8/17/1869    0700Z 28.1N  96.8W   90kt  2    ---   (969mb)   BTX2
2-8/17/1869    0700Z 28.1N  96.8W   90kt  2    ---   (965mb)   BTX2
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as a 90 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb - 
for a 90 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1869/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from the ship "Siene".

********************************************************************************

1869/04:  Major change for this storm:  A 48 hr track was achieved, while
Partagas and Diaz (1995a) had originally kept the storm stationary.  Track
was achieved by considering the observations from the "Harriet" and
"Mary Celeste".

********************************************************************************


1869/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Inland winds over the Louisiana reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon reports from Grand Isle and New Orleans.

1869/05 - 2011 REVISION:

03520 09/04/1869 M= 3  5 SNBR= 120 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
03525 09/04*262 884  70    0*267 886  70    0*272 888  70    0*278 891  70    0*
03530 09/05*283 895  70    0*287 896  70    0*292 900  70    0*297 903  50    0*
03535 09/06*302 906  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
03540 HR LA1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
5-9/5/1869     1200Z 29.2N  90.0W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   LA1
5-9/5/1869     1200Z 29.2N  90.0W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   LA1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.


********************************************************************************


1869/06:  Have altered significantly the track from Partagas and Diaz's 
(1995a) analysis based upon Ho's (1989) work, which was apparently not
utilized by Partagas and Diaz.  Storm tide value of 8' provided by Ho (1989) 
for Providence, Rhode Island.  Ship with central pressure observation of 950 mb 
gives 97 kt with new northern wind-pressure relationship and Ho's estimated 
landfall central pressure of 963 mb gives 88 kt.  Have assigned 100 kt for 
six hourly intensity based upon the ship observation and 90 kt at landfall 
time.  Central pressure measurement of 973 mb measured at Milton, MA gives 
80 kt with northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt used in 
best-track.  Storm determined to have reached major hurricane status based 
central pressure reading of 950 mb as well as several ship reports.  Storm 
also known as the "September Gale of 1869 in Eastern New England" in Ludlum 
(1963).  Inland winds over New England reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model.

1869/06 - 2003 REVISION:

03375 09/07/1869 M= 3  6 SNBR= 117 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
03375 09/07/1869 M= 3  6 SNBR= 119 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***                        *

03380 09/07*270 745  90    0*280 745  90    0*290 744  90    0*301 741  90    0
03385 09/08*313 740 100    0*325 736 100    0*350 733 100    0*388 726 100  950
03390 09/09*428 711  80  973*470 690  60    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
03390 09/09*428 711  80  973*470 690  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
                                      **

03395 HR NY1 RI2 MA2 CT1
03395 HR NY1 RI3 MA3 CT1
             *** ***

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
6-9/8/1869&    2100Z 41.0N  71.9W   70kt  1      963mb     NY1
6-9/8/1869&    2100Z 41.0N  71.9W   80kt  1      963mb     NY1
                                    **

6-9/8/1869     2200Z 41.4N  71.7W   90kt  2      965mb     RI2,MA2,CT1
6-9/8/1869     2200Z 41.4N  71.7W  100kt  3      965mb     RI3,MA3,CT1
                                   ***    *                *** ***

Boose et al. (2001) analyzed this hurricane as a Category 3 at U.S. landfall,
based upon widespread reports of wind-caused Fujita-scale 2 damage in 
New England.  Additionally, their reconstructed damage work analyzes a RMW of 
30 nmi at landfall, which is substantially smaller than the earlier estimate of
40 nmi from Ho (1989).  Ho's 963 mb central pressure estimate suggests
88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship.  With a RMW slightly 
smaller than that expected climatologically (around 34 nmi) for that central
pressure and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000), winds somewhat higher than 
what the wind-pressure relationship suggests should be used.  Additionally,
the extremely rapid forward motion of the hurricane (around 40 kt) would
also argue for higher winds than is usual on the right semi-circle of the 
hurricane.  Based upon all of these points, the estimated maximum sustained 
winds at landfall are increased from 90 kt (Category 2) to 100 kt (Category 3),
making this a major hurricane landfall in New England.  (No changes were
needed for the 6 hourly intervals within HURDAT.)
Additionally, as the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized 
for this hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland
decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical
cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001).  This model does decay systems faster 
and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 06Z on the 9th, which is 
reflected in the revised HURDAT.  

********************************************************************************

1869/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Ship with central pressure observation of 979 mb gives 79 kt with  
southern wind-pressure relationship, thus 80 kt is assigned to the best track.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon the
above central pressure reading and several ship observations.

********************************************************************************

1869/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No 
track available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************

1869/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  No track 
available, only one point. 

********************************************************************************

1869/10: Major alteration is to shift track farther to the west over New 
England to account for observations at Nantucket Island and Gardiner as 
described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) and to take into account new analysis
by Abraham et al. (1998).  Abraham et al. showed that this hurricane was
undergoing extratropical transition as it interacted with (and was likely 
absorbed by) a secondary, baroclinic low on the 5th of October.   Pressure 
reading of 972 mb not in hurricane's center (at 18 UTC, 4th of October) 
suggests winds of at least 80 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship 
- 90 kt chosen for best track.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane 
status based upon above peripheral pressure reading, several ship reports and 
the destruction caused in Massachusetts and Maine.  Inland winds over New 
England and Canada reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model.  
Storm surge of 6-7' is estimated to have occurred in the Upper Bay of Fundy, 
Canada (Parkes et al. 1998).  Hurricane is also known as the "Saxby's Gale" 
from description given in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) and Ludlum's (1963) 
report.

1869/10 - 2003 REVISION:

03480 10/04/1869 M= 2 10 SNBR= 121 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
03480 10/04/1869 M= 2 10 SNBR= 124 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***

03485 10/04*315 755  90    0*345 730  90    0*377 715  90    0*407 706  90    0
03490 10/05*440 700  80    0*465 685  70    0*480 655  60    0*  0   0   0    0
03490 10/05*440 700  80    0*465 685  60    0*480 655  50    0*  0   0   0    0
                                      **               **

03495 HR MA1 ME1 

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
10-10/4/1869&  1900Z 41.3N  70.5W   70kt  1     (960mb)    MA1
10-10/4/1869&  1900Z 41.3N  70.5W   80kt  1     (965mb)    MA1
                                    **           ***

10-10/4/1869&  2000Z 41.7N  70.4W   70kt  1     (960mb)    MA1
10-10/4/1869&  2000Z 41.7N  70.4W   80kt  1     (965mb)    MA1
                                    **           ***

10-10/4/1869   2300Z 43.7N  70.1W   80kt  1     (972mb)    ME1
10-10/4/1869   2300Z 43.7N  70.1W   90kt  2     (968mb)    ME2
                                    **    *      ***       ***

Boose et al. (2001 and personal communication) analyzed this hurricane as a 
Category 2 impact in Massachusetts and Category 3 impact in Maine during 
its U.S. landfall.  The original HURDAT had this hurricane listed as being 
a high end Category 2 as it made U.S. landfall (90 kt), but with the RMW 
staying offshore near Massachusetts.  Given the low number of reports 
utilized in the reconstructed versus actual damage in their damage-based 
empirical wind modeling work for this case, a boost to the winds at landfall 
to this extent is does not have enough substantiation.  However, estimates 
of winds at landfall are increased moderately, though this does not 
necessitate any changes to the 6-hourly HURDAT itself.  Boose et al. (2001) 
also estimated a RMW of 30 nmi at landfall, which does suggest a slightly 
higher central pressure to match the 90 kt given a slightly smaller than 
usual RMW for this windspeed and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000).  
Additionally, as the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized 
for this hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland
decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical
cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001).  This model does decay systems faster 
and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 06 and 12Z on the 5th, which 
is reflected in the revised HURDAT.  

********************************************************************************



1870/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
No track available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have
reached hurricane status based upon damage reports from Mobile, Alabama.  
Storm is also known as the "Mobile Storm of July 1870" in Ludlum (1963).

1870/01 - 2011 REVISION:

03670 07/30/1870 M= 1  1 SNBR= 126 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
03675 07/30*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*305 880  70    0*
03680 HR AL1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-7/30/1870    1800Z 30.5N  88.0W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AL1
1-7/30/1870    1800Z 30.5N  88.0W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Alabama as an 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1870/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status from several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1870/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. 
Ship with central pressure observation of 1004 mb gives 39 kt with  
southern wind-pressure relationship, thus 40 kt is assigned to the best track.

********************************************************************************

1870/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. 
Ship with central pressure observation of 948 mb gives 98 kt with  
northern wind-pressure relationship, thus 100 kt is assigned to the best 
track.  Storm is suggested to have reached major hurricane status based upon 
the above central pressure reading.

********************************************************************************

1870/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. 
Ship with central pressure observation of 969 mb gives 83 kt with  
northern wind-pressure relationship, thus 80 kt is assigned to the best 
track.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon above 
central pressure reading as well as several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1870/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. 
Central pressure observation over Cuba of 969 mb gives 91 kt with southern 
wind-pressure relationship, thus 90 kt is assigned to the best track.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon the above central
pressure measurement, several ship reports and destruction that occurred
in Cuba.  This system is known as the first of the "Twin Key West 
Hurricanes in 1870" in Ludlum (1963).


1870/06 - 2003 REVISION:

03635 10/05/1870 M=10  6 SNBR= 127 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
03635 10/05/1870 M=10  6 SNBR= 130 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***

03640 10/05*175 740  40    0*181 750  40    0*187 760  50    0*191 770  50    0
03645 10/06*195 780  60    0*200 791  60    0*205 800  70    0*210 804  70    0
03650 10/07*214 809  80    0*217 813  80    0*221 816  90  969*224 819  90    0
03650 10/07*214 809  80    0*217 813  90    0*221 816 100  959*224 819 100    0
                                      **              ***  ***         ***

03655 10/08*227 821  80    0*231 821  80    0*234 820  90    0*237 819  90    0
03655 10/08*227 821  90    0*231 821  80    0*234 820  90    0*237 819  90    0
                     **

03660 10/09*239 818  90    0*241 816  90    0*242 814  90    0*244 811  90    0
03665 10/10*245 810  90    0*246 808  90    0*247 806  90    0*249 803  90    0
03670 10/11*251 800  90    0*252 798  90    0*255 795  90    0*258 790  90    0
03675 10/12*262 786  90    0*265 781  90    0*268 776  80    0*273 770  80    0
03680 10/13*278 763  70    0*283 756  70    0*289 749  60    0*295 740  60    0
03680 10/13*278 763  80    0*283 756  80    0*289 749  70    0*295 740  70    0
                     **               **               **               **

03685 10/14*301 729  60    0*307 718  60    0*314 705  60    0*322 691  60    0
03685 10/14*301 729  70    0*307 718  70    0*314 705  70    0*322 691  70    0
                     **               **               **               **

03690 HRBFL1 
03690 HRBFL1CFL1  
            ****

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
6-10/10/1870$* 0500Z 24.6N  80.8W   70kt  1     (970mb)    BFL1
6-10/10/1870$* 0500Z 24.6N  80.8W   70kt  1     (970mb)    BFL1,CFL1
                                                                ****

Re-analysis effort by meteorologists in Cuba (Perez 2000) have uncovered
that the central pressure for this hurricane was 959 mb (at Nueva Paz on the
8th), which suggests winds of 101 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 100 kt used for the best track.  This is consistent with the
assessment of landfall as a Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba (Perez
2000).  The original listing of 969 mb for a central pressure (12Z on the
7th) was determined to be, instead, a peripheral pressure from Matanzas.  The 
hurricane is known as El Huracan de San Marcos for its impacts in Cuba (Perez 
2000).  The U.S. landfall designation also includes the CFL1 (Southeast 
Florida) because of the new geographical designation implemented
by NHC in 2000.


1870/06 - 2006 REVISION:

03820 10/05/1870 M=10  6 SNBR= 131 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
03820 10/05/1870 M=10  6 SNBR= 131 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=1                     
                                                    *

03825 10/05*175 740  40    0*181 750  40    0*187 760  50    0*191 770  50    0*
03830 10/06*195 780  60    0*200 791  60    0*205 800  70    0*210 804  70    0*
03835 10/07*214 809  80    0*217 813  90    0*221 816 100  959*224 819 100    0*
03840 10/08*227 821  90    0*231 821  80    0*234 820  90    0*237 819  90    0*
03845 10/09*239 818  90    0*241 816  90    0*242 814  90    0*244 811  90    0*
03850 10/10*245 810  90    0*246 808  90    0*247 806  90    0*249 803  90    0*
03855 10/11*251 800  90    0*252 798  90    0*255 795  90    0*258 790  90    0*
03860 10/12*262 786  90    0*265 781  90    0*268 776  80    0*273 770  80    0*
03865 10/13*278 763  80    0*283 756  80    0*289 749  70    0*295 740  70    0*
03870 10/14*301 729  70    0*307 718  70    0*314 705  70    0*322 691  70    0*
03875 HRBFL1CFL1                                                                

As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did
cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental
U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0".

********************************************************************************

1870/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
No track available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have
reached hurricane status based upon report from the ship "Horatio
Harris".

********************************************************************************

1870/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several
ship observations.

********************************************************************************


1870/09:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
Inland winds over Cuba and Florida reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model.  Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane
status at landfall in Cuba based upon severe damage in Vuelta Abajo and
Batabano.  This system is known as the second of the "Twin Key West
Hurricanes in 1870" in Ludlum (1963).


1870/09 - 2003 REVISION:

03730 10/19/1870 M= 4  9 SNBR= 130 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
03730 10/19/1870 M= 4  9 SNBR= 133 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***

03735 10/19*195 841 100    0*199 840 100    0*204 840 100    0*211 839 100    0
03735 10/19*195 841  90    0*199 840  90    0*204 840  90    0*211 839  90    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

03740 10/20*219 836 100    0*229 834  90    0*239 829  80    0*252 820  80    0
03740 10/20*220 837  90    0*231 835  80    0*243 831  80    0*255 823  80    0
            *** *** ***      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

03745 10/21*266 808  70    0*280 793  60    0*291 781  70    0*303 766  70    0
03745 10/21*267 811  70    0*279 797  60    0*291 781  70    0*303 766  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***

03750 10/22*314 754  70    0*325 740  70    0*335 726  70    0*345 711  70    0
03755 HRBFL1


U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
9-10/20/1870$  1400Z 24.7N  82.8W  80kt   1     (977mb)    BFL1
(Landfall over Fort Jefferson is additional strike in U.S.)

9-10/20/1870$  2100Z 25.9N  81.5W  80kt   1     (977mb)    BFL1
9-10/20/1870$  2000Z 26.0N  81.6W  80kt   1     (977mb)    BFL1
               ****  ****   ****


Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has analyzed this hurricane as a 
Category 2 landfall in Cuba, instead of a Category 3 assigned in HURDAT
(mainly on the hurricane-caused damage).  Winds are adjusted accordingly
on the 19th and 20th.

Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami uncovered observations from
the U.S. military base Fort Jefferson west of Key West:

Fort Jefferson (24.7N, 82.8W):
Date       12Z    19Z    02Z 
10/19/1870 E-4    E-4    E-3   
10/20/1870 E-10   NW-9   SE-5

Remarks:
"For several days past the wind has been blowing first from the E and SE.
At 9 P.M. Oct. 19th, it began increasing and at 3 A.M. Oct. 20th amounted
to a Hurricane.  Heavy rainfall, but not lightning or thunder accompanied
it.  Trees and fences protested, buildings surroofed & debris flying in
every direction, making it dangerous to be out.  At 8:15 A.M., the wind
died completely out in 3 minutes, so close as to be uncomfortable.  
Suddenly at 9:40 A.M. it set in from the opposite direction, and in 
twenty minutes increased to a Hurricane.  At 2 P.M. began diminishing and
at 9 P.M. amounted to a moderate breeze."

Military Post Wind Force Scale
(values are estimates of the highest gusts)
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze  2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze      4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze      12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze     25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze       35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale              45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale       60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale      75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane         90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent    100 mph (87 kt)

These additional observations indicate that the hurricane made a direct 
landfall over the fort at 14Z on the 20th, rather than passing to the
east.  The track has been adjusted on the 20th and 21st appropriately.

********************************************************************************

1870/10:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.  
No track available, only one point.  Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon observations from the ships "R. Murray, Jr."
and a Spanish bark.

********************************************************************************

1870/11:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995b) analysis.  
Inland winds over Mexico reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) 
inland decay model with an accelerated rate of decay to account for
the enhanced topography.  Storm determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon reports from ships "Silver Star" and "Nymph".

1870/11 - 2003 REVISION:

03775 10/30/1870 M= 5 11 SNBR= 132 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
03775 10/30/1870 M= 5 11 SNBR= 135 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

03780 10/30*170 855  60    0*171 856  60    0*172 860  60    0*172 861  60    0
03785 10/31*174 864  70    0*175 866  60    0*177 869  70    0*177 871  70    0
03785 10/31*174 864  70    0*175 866  70    0*177 869  70    0*177 871  70    0
                                      **

03790 11/01*180 876  70    0*182 878  70    0*185 880  70    0*187 880  60    0
03795 11/02*192 879  50    0*197 876  40    0*204 874  40    0*214 869  50    0
03800 11/03*222 863  60    0*230 856  60    0*237 850  70    0*242 840  70    0
03805 HR

Typographical error - the storm was designated as being of hurricane
force from 00Z on the 31st until 12Z on the 1st.

********************************************************************************

1871/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995b) analysis.
Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas.  999 mb 
central pressure provides guidance of 47 kt using the Gulf of 
Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen in best track.
The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this 
tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its 
dissipation below tropical depression strength).

1871/01 - 2003 REVISION:

03915 06/01/1871 M= 5  1 SNBR= 133 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
03915 06/01/1871 M= 5  1 SNBR= 136 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

03920 06/01*241 810  40    0*241 821  40    0*242 836  40    0*247 846  40    0
03925 06/02*252 854  50    0*258 861  50    0*261 873  50    0*265 886  50    0
03930 06/03*268 898  50    0*270 911  50    0*273 924  50    0*277 933  50    0
03935 06/04*282 941  50    0*289 950  50  999*297 956  50    0*303 960  40    0
03935 06/04*282 941  50    0*289 950  50  999*297 956  40    0*303 960  40    0
                                                       **

03940 06/05*311 961  40    0*320 961  40    0*332 958  30    0*350 950  30    0
03945 TS  

Winds not reduced after landfall occurred until well-inland.  Winds
decreased at 12Z on the 4th for more realistic decay.

********************************************************************************

1871/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas.  The best 
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this 
tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its 
dissipation below tropical depression strength).

********************************************************************************

1871/03:  Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) was to 
extend track of storm one full day into the SE United States to 
accommodate a typical decay of the hurricane to  tropical depression
strength, as suggested by the inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995).  Partagas and Diaz (1995b) did make large changes to
the track found in Neumann et al. (1993), though these are found to be
reasonable.  952 mb central pressure provides guidance of 101 kt using 
the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used in 
the best track.  955 mb central pressure provides guidance of 99 kt 
using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt 
used in the best track.  Storm is determined to have reached major 
hurricane status based upon above central pressure measurements.

1871/03 - 2003 REVISION:

03870 08/14/1871 M=10  3 SNBR= 134 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
03870 08/14/1871 M=10  3 SNBR= 137 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***                        *

03875 08/14*265 724  80    0*266 730  80    0*267 736  80    0*268 743  80    0
03875 08/14*265 724  80    0*266 730  80    0*267 736  80    0*267 743  80    0
                                                               ***

03880 08/15*269 750  90    0*269 756  90    0*270 765 100    0*270 773 100  952
03880 08/15*268 750  90    0*268 758  90    0*268 767 100    0*268 777 100    0
            ***              *** ***          *** ***          *** ***      ***

03885 08/16*271 780 100    0*272 785 100  955*273 791 100    0*274 795 100    0
03885 08/16*268 785 100  952*268 791 100  955*268 795 100    0*269 798 100    0
            *** ***      *** *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

03890 08/17*275 796 100    0*276 799 100    0*277 800 100    0*279 801 100    0
03890 08/17*270 801 100    0*272 805  90    0*276 811  80    0*283 817  70    0
            *** ***          *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

03895 08/18*282 803  90    0*287 804  90    0*290 805  90    0*294 806  90    0
03895 08/18*290 821  70    0*297 825  60    0*304 823  60    0*308 819  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

03900 08/19*300 806  80    0*307 806  80    0*315 805  80    0*322 798  80    0
03900 08/19*313 814  50    0*318 808  60    0*321 802  60    0*323 796  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

03905 08/20*325 788  80    0*327 776  80    0*327 766  80    0*324 764  80    0
03905 08/20*325 788  60    0*327 776  60    0*326 768  60    0*324 764  60    0
                     **               **      *** ***  **               **

03910 08/21*320 761  80    0*317 763  80    0*315 765  80    0*311 771  80    0
03910 08/21*320 761  60    0*317 763  60    0*314 765  60    0*312 771  60    0
                     **               **      ***      **      ***      **

03915 08/22*310 780  80    0*310 786  90    0*310 795  90    0*311 804  90    0
03915 08/22*311 780  60    0*310 786  60    0*310 795  60    0*311 804  60    0
            ***      **               **               **               **

03920 08/23*312 814  90    0*313 824  60    0*314 835  40    0*314 845  30    0
03920 08/23*312 814  60    0*313 824  50    0*314 835  40    0*314 845  30    0
                     **               **               

03925 HR GA2DFL1  
03925 HRCFL3DFL1AFL1
        ****    ****


U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
3-8/18/1871$*  0000Z 28.2N  80.3W   80kt  1    (965mb)    DFL1
3-8/17/1871$*  0200Z 27.1N  80.2W  100kt  3     955mb     CFL3,DFL1,AFL1
    **         ***** *****  *****  *****  *    *******    ****      ****

3-8/23/1871    0000Z 31.2N  81.3W   90kt  2    (965mb)    GA2,DFL1
3-8/23/1871    0000Z 31.2N  81.3W   60kt  TS    -----     ---
                                    ****  **   *******    ********  

Hurricane is revised from the previously accepted analysis of Partagas
and Diaz due to inclusion of work by Ho (1989).  In particular, additional 
observations were provided from New Smyrna, Fairview, Ocala, Picolata, 
Tampa, Jacksonville (FL), and Savannah (GA). These land-based measurements
from Ho's study were key in providing the track alteration to one that
made landfall in central east Florida, passed over Ocala, moved west of 
Jacksonville, then back over water off of southern Georgia.  However, Ho's 
intensity analysis of a 945 mb central pressure is likely too low an 
estimation as a 955 mb central pressure recorded by the ship "Victor" 
(as recorded in Partagas and Diaz 1995b) occurred very near the coast, 
along Jupiter.  Hurricane is re-analyzed to come ashore early on the 23rd 
as a tropical storm in Georgia since there is no evidence that it 
reintensified to a hurricane after weakening to a tropical storm while 
over Florida.

********************************************************************************

1871/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who 
made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  
These track changes are found to be reasonable.  965 mb central 
pressure provides guidance for 95 kt utilizing the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track.  962 mb central 
pressure suggests 98 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship 
- 100 kt chosen for best track.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the SE United States.  
Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon 
above central pressure measurements.  This hurricane is known as
"Santa Juana" for its impacts in Puerto Rico.

1871/04 - 2003 REVISION:

04035 08/17/1871 M=14  4 SNBR= 136 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
04035 08/17/1871 M=14  4 SNBR= 139 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***

04040 08/17*112 307  40    0*115 322  40    0*118 339  40    0*123 355  40    0
04045 08/18*129 374  50    0*135 392  50    0*140 410  50    0*142 425  50    0
04050 08/19*143 445  60    0*145 464  60    0*147 480  70    0*149 499  70    0
04055 08/20*151 522  80    0*153 545  80    0*154 564  90    0*158 582  90    0
04060 08/21*164 600 100    0*171 616 100    0*177 629 100  965*182 640 100    0
04065 08/22*189 653 100  962*195 665 100    0*200 675  90    0*207 686  90    0
04070 08/23*212 696  90    0*220 710  90    0*225 723  90    0*232 735  90    0
04075 08/24*241 750  90    0*250 764  90    0*257 776  90    0*263 786  90    0
04080 08/25*270 795  90    0*277 805  90    0*283 813  70    0*289 819  50    0
04080 08/25*270 795  90    0*277 805  90    0*283 813  70    0*289 822  50    0
                                                                   ***

04085 08/26*294 825  40    0*299 831  40    0*305 843  40    0*309 845  40    0
04085 08/26*294 831  40    0*299 838  40    0*305 843  40    0*309 845  40    0
                ***              ***

04090 08/27*313 845  30    0*317 844  30    0*320 840  30    0*320 835  30    0
04090 08/27*313 845  30    0*317 844  30    0*320 840  30    0*321 835  30    0
                                                               ***

04095 08/28*322 831  30    0*322 825  30    0*323 820  30    0*324 810  30    0
04095 08/28*322 830  30    0*322 825  30    0*323 821  30    0*324 810  30    0
                ***                               ***

04100 08/29*325 799  40    0*327 786  40    0*330 775  50    0*340 761  50    0
04105 08/30*355 743  50    0*373 724  50    0*395 705  60    0*420 685  60    0
04110 HRCFL2DFL1

Track adjusted to provide for more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************


1871/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this 
newly documented hurricane.  Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1871/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made 
reasonable small track changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 5.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) 
utilized for inland winds over Florida.  Storm is determined to have reached 
hurricane status based upon reports from the ship "Robert Myhan" and 
"Lizzie M. Merrill".


1871/06 - 2006 REVISION:
                            
04225 09/05/1871 M= 4  6 SNBR= 142 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
04230 09/05*260 901  70    0*265 890  70    0*270 876  70    0*275 861  70    0*
04235 09/06*281 849  70    0*286 841  70    0*290 833  70    0*296 825  50    0*
04240 09/07*302 818  50    0*307 811  50    0*313 803  60    0*317 793  60    0*
04245 09/08*319 783  60    0*322 770  60    0*324 759  60    0*327 750  60    0*
04250 HRAFL1   
04250 HRAFL1BFL1
            ****

Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia 
Institute of Technology, the impact from this cyclone as a Category 1
hurricane for southwest Florida ("BFL") is added.  This is based upon
ship observations of hurricane force winds south of the dividing line
between northwest ("AFL") and southwest Florida.

1871/06 - 2011 REVISION:

04225 09/05/1871 M= 4  6 SNBR= 142 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
04230 09/05*260 901  70    0*265 890  70    0*270 876  70    0*275 861  70    0*
04235 09/06*281 849  70    0*286 841  70    0*290 833  70    0*296 825  50    0*
04240 09/07*302 818  50    0*307 811  50    0*313 803  60    0*317 793  60    0*
04245 09/08*319 783  60    0*322 770  60    0*324 759  60    0*327 750  60    0*
04250 HRAFL1BFL1

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
6-9/6/1871     1400Z 29.2N  83.0W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AFL1,BFL1
6-9/6/1871     1400Z 29.2N  83.0W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AFL1,BFL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1871/07:  Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) is to 
extend out the track of the storm an additional one day to the 7th 
of October based upon suggestion in the Partagas and Diaz writeup 
due to the ship "Robert Cadwell".  Track otherwise unaltered from 
Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 6.  Inland decay model 
of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over SE United 
States.  The best track provided appears to describe the full life 
cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm 
to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation below tropical storm 
strength).  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon loss of steamships "Hall" and "Twelfth Era".

********************************************************************************

1871/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this 
newly documented hurricane.  Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane force based upon reports from ships "Nellie Antrim" and
"Armida" as well as destruction in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

********************************************************************************

1872/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over SE United States.  The 
best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this 
tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its 
dissipation below tropical depression strength).

1872/01 - 2003 REVISION:

04255 07/09/1872 M= 5  1 SNBR= 141 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
04255 07/09/1872 M= 5  1 SNBR= 144 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

04260 07/09*235 920  40    0*241 918  40    0*246 916  40    0*251 911  40    0
04260 07/09*235 920  40    0*241 918  40    0*246 916  40    0*251 912  40    0
                                                                   ***

04265 07/10*258 908  50    0*263 904  50    0*270 900  50    0*277 896  50    0
04265 07/10*257 908  50    0*263 904  50    0*270 900  50    0*277 896  50    0
            ***

04270 07/11*284 893  50    0*292 891  50    0*300 890  50    0*305 890  50    0
04275 07/12*309 891  40    0*313 891  40    0*316 893  40    0*320 895  40    0
04275 07/12*309 890  40    0*313 891  40    0*316 893  40    0*320 895  40    0
                ***

04280 07/13*325 895  30    0*330 894  30    0*335 890  30    0*342 885  30    0
04285 TS

Track altered slightly to provide a more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************

1872/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These track
changes are found to be reasonable.  The storm reached hurricane status 
based upon observations from several ships.  The best track provided 
appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from 
its formation as a tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its 
dissipation as an extratropical cyclone).  

********************************************************************************

1872/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small track alterations from that shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations 
from several ships.

********************************************************************************

1872/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.  Storm is determined to have 
reached hurricane force based upon report from the ship "Tare".

********************************************************************************


1872/05:  Track considerably altered from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
The track chosen is a compromise between that shown in Neumann et al. 
(1993) and that advocated by Partagas and Diaz.  The reasoning is that
observations in the 1872 _Monthly Weather Review_ show that 7 1/2 inches 
of rain occurred in Norfolk , which is unlikely to be produced by a separate 
extratropical storm alone as is what is suggested by Partagas and Diaz 
to have caused the gales and low pressures throughout the middle 
Atlantic states.  Additionally, the U.S. Army Signal Corp did provide 
overland tracks of extratropical storms, none of which matched up to 
the one that Partagas and Diaz suggested to have occurred.  This new 
track takes it across Florida a bit farther south than both previous tracks 
to allow for a turn northward near the ship "Cardenas", then the new track 
brings the system ashore as a tropical storm in North Carolina just a bit 
farther east of Neumann et al.'s landfall.  The new track then stays east of 
Neumann et al.'s track while over the middle Atlantic states to correspond 
with the the northeast to north winds over Washington and the low pressures 
measured in New York City.  After leaving New England, the new track rejoins 
the original Neumann et al. track.

1872/05 - 2003 REVISION:

04395 10/22/1872 M= 7  5 SNBR= 143 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
04395 10/22/1872 M= 7  5 SNBR= 146 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

04400 10/22*234 893  40    0*240 883  40    0*247 873  40    0*257 862  40    0
04405 10/23*267 848  50    0*276 833  50    0*284 818  50    0*290 803  50    0
04405 10/23*267 848  50    0*276 833  50    0*284 818  40    0*290 803  40    0
                                                       **               **

04410 10/24*300 790  60    0*313 785  70    0*326 782  70    0*336 779  60    0
04410 10/24*300 790  50    0*313 785  60    0*326 782  70    0*336 779  60    0
                     **               **

04415 10/25*343 777  50    0*350 775  50    0*357 772  40    0*365 769  40    0
04420 10/26*375 765  40    0*386 758  40    0*397 748  40    0*406 738  40    0
04425 10/27*413 726  40    0*418 713  40    0E424 692  40    0E429 672  40    0
04430 10/28E436 650  40    0E445 625  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
04435 HR

No weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over Florida.  Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over Florida.  Winds reduced accordingly on the 23rd and 24th.

********************************************************************************


1873/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Georgia.  The best 
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical 
cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation 
below tropical depression strength).

********************************************************************************

1873/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.  962 mb central pressure 
suggests 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt used 
in best track.  Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane 
status for the two days before the above central pressure measurement 
was made at latitude 44N.  The best track provided appears to describe 
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a 
tropical storm to its peak as a major hurricane until its dissipation as 
an extratropical cyclone).  

1873/02 - 2003 REVISION:

04550 08/13/1873 M=16  2 SNBR= 147 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
04550 08/13/1873 M=16  2 SNBR= 150 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

04555 08/13*139 250  40    0*140 260  40    0*140 270  40    0*141 281  40    0
04560 08/14*141 293  50    0*142 306  50    0*143 320  50    0*144 330  50    0
04565 08/15*145 344  50    0*145 359  50    0*145 373  50    0*146 384  50    0
04570 08/16*147 397  60    0*148 412  60    0*150 427  60    0*153 440  60    0
04575 08/17*156 455  70    0*160 470  70    0*165 490  70    0*169 505  70    0
04580 08/18*175 520  70    0*182 536  70    0*187 550  70    0*195 564  70    0
04585 08/19*202 579  80    0*212 595  80    0*220 610  80    0*229 621  80    0
04590 08/20*239 635  80    0*249 646  80    0*260 656  80    0*268 666  80    0
04595 08/21*278 673  90    0*290 678  90    0*303 683  90    0*310 684  90    0
04595 08/21*278 673  90    0*290 678  90    0*303 682  90    0*310 684  90    0
                                                  ***

04600 08/22*317 685  90    0*325 686  90    0*333 685  90    0*343 683  90    0
04605 08/23*352 680 100    0*360 676 100    0*370 670 100    0*383 664 100    0
04610 08/24*395 658 100    0*409 646 100    0*420 635  90    0*430 614  90    0
04615 08/25*437 589  90  962*444 566  90    0*450 550  80    0*457 543  80    0
04620 08/26*460 541  80    0*465 541  80    0*470 540  70    0*474 540  70    0
04625 08/27*478 539  70    0*482 537  70    0E485 535  60    0E494 526  60    0
04630 08/28E504 513  60    0E510 498  60    0E520 480  50    0E530 460  50    0
04635 HR

Minor track alteration on the 21st for more realistic motion.

********************************************************************************

1873/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Pressure reading of 992 mb not in hurricane's center (at 12 UTC, 19th of 
September) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-
pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.  Inland decay 
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the 
SE United States.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane force
in the Gulf of Mexico based upon destruction that occurred in Tallahassee,
Florida; storm regained hurricane strength in the Atlantic based upon above
peripheral surface pressure report along with several ship observations.

1873/03 - 2011 REVISION:

04720 09/18/1873 M= 3  3 SNBR= 152 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
04725 09/18*227 899  70    0*235 899  70    0*245 896  70    0*257 889  70    0*
04730 09/19*268 878  70    0*279 866  70    0*291 851  70    0*307 834  60    0*
04735 09/20*325 806  50    0*335 778  60    0*342 745  70    0*345 703  70    0*
04740 HRAFL1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
3-9/19/1873    1500Z 29.9N  84.4W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AFL1
3-9/19/1873    1500Z 29.9N  84.4W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AFL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1873/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida.

********************************************************************************

1873/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track reasonably shown in Neumann et al. 
(1993).  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Inland decay 
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
Hispanola, Cuba and the SE United States.  Used an accelerated decay 
rate over Cuba to account for enhanced topography.  Pressure reading 
of 969 mb not in hurricane's center (on 12 UTC, September 28th) suggests 
winds of at least 91 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship -
100 kt chosen for best track.  Pressure reading of 971 mb not
in hurricane's center (on 00 UTC, September 29th) suggests winds of
at least 88 kt - 90 kt chosen for best track.  Estimate of 959 mb for
central pressure at landfall in SW Florida from Ho (1989) appears
reasonable and matches SLOSH modeling work by Jarvinen (1990).
959 mb central pressure suggests 101 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for the best track.  Storm tide
value of 14' at Punta Rassa, Florida from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Storm
is determined to have reached major hurricane status on the 28th of
September based upon peripheral surface pressure reading of 969 mb and
destruction that occurred in Jacmal, Haiti.  Storm regained major
hurricane status on the 7th of October based upon the estimate of central 
pressure of 959 mb and surge/destruction in Punta Rassa.

1873/05 - 2003 REVISION:

04690 09/26/1873 M=15  5 SNBR= 150 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
04690 09/26/1873 M=15  5 SNBR= 153 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***

04695 09/26*147 623  40    0*148 631  40    0*150 640  50    0*153 651  50    0
04700 09/27*157 665  60    0*160 676  60    0*162 690  70    0*166 701  70    0
04705 09/28*169 711  80    0*174 723  90    0*180 730 100    0*190 739  90    0
04710 09/29*197 745  90    0*202 755  80    0*202 765  60    0*202 771  50    0
04715 09/30*201 778  40    0*200 784  40    0*200 790  40    0*201 796  40    0
04720 10/01*201 801  40    0*201 806  40    0*200 810  40    0*200 814  40    0
04725 10/02*200 818  50    0*200 821  50    0*200 825  50    0*200 828  50    0
04730 10/03*200 831  60    0*200 836  60    0*200 840  70    0*200 846  70    0
04735 10/04*200 851  70    0*201 856  70    0*202 860  80    0*206 861  80    0
04735 10/04*200 851  70    0*201 856  70    0*202 860  80    0*204 861  80    0
                                                               ***

04740 10/05*210 864  80    0*212 865  80    0*215 865  90    0*219 864  90    0
04740 10/05*208 864  80    0*212 865  80    0*215 865  90    0*219 864  90    0
            ***

04745 10/06*224 861  90    0*230 859  90    0*237 855 100    0*247 841 100    0
04750 10/07*262 825 100  959*281 803  80    0*297 786  80    0*311 771  80    0
04755 10/08*324 756  90    0*337 741  90    0*350 726  80    0*363 709  80    0
04760 10/09*375 685  70    0*388 661  70    0E395 645  60    0E400 630  60    0
04765 10/10E405 615  60    0E410 600  60    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
04770 HRBFL3CFL2DFL1    

Track slightly altered to provide a more realistic motion.

********************************************************************************

1874/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas.  The best 
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical 
cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation 
below tropical depression strength).

********************************************************************************

1874/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon a report from "a sailing vessel".

********************************************************************************

1874/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.  Pressure reading of 980 mb 
not in storm's center (on 18 UTC, 7th of September) suggests winds of 
at least 73 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt 
chosen for best track as it is determined that the storm had already 
undergone extratropical transition by this point.  Storm determined to 
have reached hurricane status based upon several ship observations.

********************************************************************************



1874/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Mexico and Texas.  The best 
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical 
cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation 
below tropical depression strength).

1874/04 - 2003 REVISION:

04905 09/02/1874 M= 6  4 SNBR= 154 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
04905 09/02/1874 M= 6  4 SNBR= 157 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

04910 09/02*204 946  40    0*207 950  40    0*212 953  40    0*215 956  40    0
04915 09/03*220 959  40    0*224 962  40    0*229 965  40    0*234 968  40    0
04920 09/04*239 970  50    0*244 971  50    0*250 976  50    0*255 978  50    0
04920 09/04*239 971  50    0*244 974  50    0*250 976  50    0*255 978  50    0
                ***              ***

04925 09/05*261 980  40    0*267 981  40    0*273 982  30    0*278 983  30    0
04930 09/06*283 984  30    0*288 985  30    0*292 985  30    0*297 985  30    0
04935 09/07*303 985  30    0*310 984  30    0*317 984  30    0*325 983  30    0
04940 TS  

Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion.

********************************************************************************

1874/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  

********************************************************************************

1874/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds 
over Mexico, Florida and the eastern United States.  A pressure reading 
of 996 mb not in the storm's center (at 06 UTC, September 28th) suggests
winds of at least 53 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure
relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. A central pressure of 984 mb 
suggests 71 kt using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship
- 70 kt chosen for best track.  A central pressure of 987 mb suggests 67 kt 
using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen 
for best track.  A central pressure of 980 mb suggests 73 kt using the 
northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen as it is determined that 
the storm transitioned to extratropical.  The storm is determined to have 
reached hurricane force from the 984 mb central pressure and reports from
the ship "Emma D. Finney".  The best track provided appears to describe 
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a 
tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation as an 
extratropical storm).

1874/06 - 2003 REVISION:

04870 09/25/1874 M= 7  6 SNBR= 156 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
04870 09/25/1874 M= 7  6 SNBR= 159 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***

04875 09/25*175 864  40    0*181 871  40    0*185 875  50    0*190 880  50    0
04875 09/25*175 864  40    0*181 871  40    0*185 875  50    0*190 880  40    0
                                                                        **

04880 09/26*196 884  40    0*204 886  40    0*212 888  40    0*222 885  40    0
04880 09/26*196 884  40    0*204 886  30    0*212 888  30    0*222 885  40    0
                                      **               **

04885 09/27*232 880  50    0*241 875  50    0*252 865  60    0*268 851  60    0
04885 09/27*232 880  50    0*242 875  50    0*252 865  60    0*268 851  60    0
                             ***

04890 09/28*282 836  70    0*295 825  60    0*310 810  70    0*324 801  70  984
04890 09/28*282 836  70    0*298 823  60    0*314 810  70    0*328 800  80  981
                             *** ***          ***              *** ***  **  ***

04895 09/29*339 795  70  987*354 789  60    0*368 780  50    0*389 760  50    0
04895 09/29*340 790  70    0*352 780  60    0*368 770  50    0*389 755  50    0
            *** ***      *** *** ***              ***              ***

04900 09/30*409 736  60    0*427 716  60    0E443 700  60    0E460 680  60  980
04905 10/01E480 655  50    0E500 630  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
04910 HRAFL1 SC1 NC1  

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
6-10/28/1874   0400Z 29.1N  82.8W   70kt  1    (985mb)  AFL1
6-10/28/1874   0300Z 29.1N  82.9W   70kt  1    (985mb)  AFL1
               ****         ****

6-10/28/1874   1900Z 32.6N  80.0W   70kt  1     984mb   SC1,NC1
6-10/28/1874   1800Z 32.8N  80.0W   80kt  1     981mb   SC1,NC1
               ****  ****           **          ***

Unrealistically small weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing 
over the Yucatan of Mexico.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) 
utilized for inland winds over Mexico.  Winds reduced accordingly on the 25th
and 26th.

Recent research by Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina
that there was a measurement of 981 mb from Georgetown which does appear 
to be a central pressure value.  (The hurricane appears to have maintained
intensity or slightly intensified between Charleston (984 mb) and
Georgetown (981 mb).)  981 mb suggest winds of 74 kt from the subtropical 
wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track in part based upon 
destruction that occurred in Charleston.  The track is adjusted slightly to 
the east at and after landfall to accommodate this new data (included in 
full below):

Sept. 28, 1874, from the weather diary of Alexander Glennie at Georgetown, SC.
Wind strength was recorded in a numerical scale from 1-6, with 1 indicating a 
very light breeze and 6 indicating a violent storm.  Total precipitation at 
Georgetown was 1.5 inches, which suggests it didn't receive the brunt of the 
rainfall.
* Morning and Forenoon (probably sunrise, as the temperature observation is 
  at sunrise):  72 F, SE wind at 5, Rain, Gale
* Noon and Afternoon (temperature reading is at 2 pm):  73 F, E wind at 6, 
  heavy Gale Rain;  wind changed 3 pm to W.. Bar [barometer] at 3 pm 28.96
* Evening and Night (temperature reading is at 9 pm):  65 F, SW 3.

The News and Courier, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 1874, p. 1.

THE GREAT GALE OF 1874

A MEMORABLE DAY-FULL DETAILS OF THE AWFUL STORM.

	The long immunity which Charleston has enjoyed from disastrous 
gales was interrupted yesterday by a disaster which has probably destroyed 
over a quarter of a million dollars' worth of property.  In the early part 
of the present month everybody was on the lookout for the equinoctial 
storm, because there exists a kind of tradition that severe and disastrous 
equinoxes occur once in every twenty years, and it is just twenty years 
since the destructive gale of 1854.  But when the 21st of the month had 
passed without bringing the disagreeable visitor people began to think 
that Charleston would after all escape the dreadful infliction.  For over 
a fortnight the wind had been blowing steadily from the east, and at times 
the weather had assumed a threatening aspect, but not sufficiently so to 
warrant the apprehension of a gale.  On Sunday evening at a late hour it 
began to blow stiffly in puffs and to rain, and by daylight the wind had 
increased considerably, blowing from the east and southeast.  The steamer 
Dictator, which arrived in the morning, reported heavy weather at sea, but 
the captain failed to observe any indications of the coming blow.  About 
half-past six or seven o'clock in the morning the wind grew stronger, with 
heavy squalls and severe puffs, which created general apprehensions.  At 
eight o'clock it was evident that

	THE GALE WAS UPON US.

	The sea was heaving and tossing in the harbor, and the rapidly 
encroaching tide began to flood the wharves and streets.  The squalls kept 
constantly increasing in strength, and the masters of vessels in port 
began to look anxiously to their moorings.  At nine o'clock the tide had 
risen so high that it covered all the wharves on the eastern front of the 
city and flooded the streets to the depth of several feet.  Many of the 
wharves were washed up, and several vessels parted from their moorings and 
were driven on shore.

	THE SCENE FROM THE WHARVES

at this time was terrific.  In every direction drift wood, bales of 
cotton, wrecked boats and debris were being tossed about.  The wind, 
whistling through the rigging of the shipping, made melancholy music, and 
the blinding rain falling in torrents rendered efforts to save anything 
almost useless.  The tide rose to a great height, in many instances 
lifting the flooring from the piers and rendering it extremely hazardous 
for anybody to stand in the vicinity.  The sea in the harbor rolled 
mountain high, and the waves dashed over the piers in huge rollers.  At 
Accommodation wharf a bark was driven from her moorings high up on the 
landing into the wharf office of Campbell Wylly & Co., but was blown off a 
gain when the wind shifted.  So great was the force of the wind that the 
bowsprit of the vessel entered the second story of the building, which was 
of brick, and cut it completely in two, making a clean split.  At the 
wharf of the Sullivan's Island steamers the waves washed clear over the 
wood work, and the anxious crowd who had gathered there to hear tidings 
from friends on the Island were fairly driven back by the blinding rain 
and rapidly rising waters.  East Bay and Calhoun street were flooded with 
water to such a depth as to

	FLOAT THE CARS

of the Enterprise Railway from the track.  All the wharves above Market 
street were more or less damaged, but those below that point suffered the 
most.  At Vanderhorst wharf, a large flat loaded with phosphate rock 
intended for the ship Border Chieftain parted the fastenings, and was 
blown into three sloops in the dock, sinking them almost immediately.  The 
flat was then lifted by the waves and thrown transversely across the dock, 
making a complete bridge between the two piers.  The British bark 
Beltiate, which had lately arrived from Liverpool and was anchored in the 
stream, was blown from her moorings despite two heavy anchors held by 
seventy-five and forty-five feet of iron chain and dragged into the dock 
between Boyce and Atlantic wharf.  The wharf on the extreme southern limit 
of the eastern water front was completely washed away, and the piers 
immediately adjoining on the north, at which were moored the steamers City 
Point and Dictator, were also badly damaged.  The work of destruction 
continued without interruption until about half-past twelve, when

	THE WIND MODULATED

for a short time, and then shifted around to the south and west, when it 
again blew with full force for about an hour, tearing the slate and tin 
from the roofs of many buildings and blowing down trees and fences in 
every direction.  The change in the direction of the wind, however, had 
the effect of turning the tide, and in an incredible short time the waters 
began to fall, and people began to breathe easier.  As soon as the wind 
shifted the rain ceased to fall, and the streets, which had up to this 
time been dangerous to pedestrians on account of the falling shingles, 
signs, and fences, were now crowded with people who had come out to view 
the effects of the storm.

1874/06 - 2011 REVISION:

05055 09/25/1874 M= 7  6 SNBR= 160 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
05060 09/25*175 864  40    0*181 871  40    0*185 875  50    0*190 880  40    0*
05065 09/26*196 884  40    0*204 886  30    0*212 888  30    0*222 885  40    0*
05070 09/27*232 880  50    0*242 875  50    0*252 865  60    0*268 851  60    0*
05075 09/28*282 836  70    0*298 823  60    0*314 810  70    0*328 800  80  981*
05080 09/29*340 790  70    0*352 780  60    0*368 770  50    0*389 755  50    0*
05085 09/30*409 736  60    0*427 716  60    0E443 700  60    0E460 680  60  980*
05090 10/01E480 655  50    0E500 630  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
05095 HRAFL1 SC1 NC1                                                            

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
6-9/28/1874    0300Z 29.1N  82.9W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AFL1
6-9/28/1874    0300Z 29.1N  82.9W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AFL1
                                                      ***

6-9/28/1874    1800Z 32.8N  80.0W   80kt  1    ---    981mb    SC1,NC1

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1874/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These
track changes appear to be reasonable.  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Jamaica and Cuba.  
Used an accelerated decay rate over Cuba to take into account the 
enhanced topography.  The storm is determined to have reached 
hurricane force based upon description of severe damage in Jamaica.

1874/07 - 2003 REVISION:

05020 10/31/1874 M= 5  7 SNBR= 157 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
05020 10/31/1874 M= 5  7 SNBR= 160 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

05025 10/31*135 784  40    0*141 783  40    0*147 781  50    0*151 781  50    0
05030 11/01*157 779  60    0*160 778  60    0*164 776  70    0*171 775  80    0
05030 11/01*157 779  60    0*160 778  60    0*164 776  70    0*171 774  80    0
                                                                   ***

05035 11/02*177 771  90    0*184 770  70    0*191 766  60    0*199 761  50    0
05035 11/02*177 772  90    0*184 770  70    0*191 766  60    0*199 761  60    0
                ***                                                     **

05040 11/03*205 758  50    0*210 754  50    0*215 750  60    0*222 744  60    0
05045 11/04*231 739  70    0*237 734  70    0*245 730  70    0*255 725  70    0
05050 HR

Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion.  Winds 
brought up to 60 kt at 18Z on the 2nd, since the storm had not yet made 
landfall in Cuba.


1874/07 - 2006 REVISION:
                            
05100 10/31/1874 M= 5  7 SNBR= 161 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0                    L
05100 10/31/1874 M= 5  7 SNBR= 161 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0                    L
                                                    *

05105 10/31*135 784  40    0*141 783  40    0*147 781  50    0*151 781  50    0*
05110 11/01*157 779  60    0*160 778  60    0*164 776  70    0*171 774  80    0*
05115 11/02*177 772  90    0*184 770  70    0*191 766  60    0*199 761  60    0*
05120 11/03*205 758  50    0*210 754  50    0*215 750  60    0*222 744  60    0*
05125 11/04*231 739  70    0*237 734  70    0*245 730  70    0*255 725  70    0*
05130 HR                                                                        

Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia 
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should not have been indicated
to be a continental U.S. landfalling system.  The landfall indicator
is thus switched (from "XING=1" to "XING=0").

********************************************************************************

1875/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this 
newly documented hurricane.  The storm is determined to have reached
hurricane force based upon several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1875/02:  The only major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) is to
extend the track of this tropical cyclone back to the 1st of September
to take into account that this was the first day of its existence reported 
in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 1.  However, the other 
track modifications that Partagas and Diaz (1995b) provided from that 
shown in Neumann et al.  (1993) were large, but reasonable.  982 mb 
central pressure suggests 75 kt from the southern wind-pressure 
relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.  The storm is determined to 
have reached hurricane force based upon the central pressure measurement 
and several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1875/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made 
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 2.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria 
(1995) utilized for inland winds over Cuba and Texas. 978 mb central 
pressure suggests 80 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 
80 kt chosen for best track.  992 mb central pressure suggests 61 kt from 
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track.  A 
pressure reading of 979 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 00 UTC, 
September 17th) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from the Gulf of Mexico 
wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt is chosen for best track.  Storm is
determined to have reached hurricane force in the Caribbean based
upon severe damage reports from Barbados, St. Vincent, Martinique,
Dominica and Cuba, several ship reports and the 978 mb central pressure.
A storm tide estimate of 15' is reported in Roth (1997b).  Storm regained 
hurricane force and reached major hurricane status in the Gulf of Mexico 
based upon ship reports, wind and storm surge produced destruction in 
Indianola and Galveston, Texas, and the peripheral pressure at landfall. 

1875/11 - 2011 REVISION:

05225 09/08/1875 M=11  3 SNBR= 164 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
05230 09/08*139 553  70    0*139 564  70    0*140 575  70    0*140 587  70    0*
05235 09/09*141 597  80    0*142 607  80    0*143 618  80    0*144 627  80    0*
05240 09/10*145 635  80    0*146 643  80    0*148 651  80    0*151 663  80    0*
05245 09/11*155 674  90    0*158 684  90    0*161 693  90    0*164 701  90    0*
05250 09/12*167 713  90    0*171 721  90    0*175 730  90    0*182 745  90    0*
05255 09/13*194 760  90    0*202 775  90    0*210 785  80  978*220 799  80    0*
05260 09/14*227 809  70    0*234 824  60  992*240 839  70    0*247 854  80    0*
05265 09/15*258 871  80    0*263 891  80    0*266 905  90    0*268 920  90    0*
05270 09/16*270 934  90    0*271 949  90    0*271 961 100    0*274 969 100    0*
05275 09/17*280 973  90    0*288 973  70    0*295 970  60    0*300 962  50    0*
05280 09/18*303 950  40    0*306 935  40    0*310 918  30    0*315 900  30    0*
05285 HRBTX3ATX2                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
3-9/16/1875    2100Z 27.7N  97.2W  100kt  3    ---   (960mb)   BTX3,ATX2
3-9/16/1875    2100Z 27.7N  97.2W  100kt  3    ---   (955mb)   BTX3,ATX2
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as a 100 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 960 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 955 mb - 
for a 100 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.  

********************************************************************************


1875/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 3.  Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
the SE United States.  The best track provided appears to describe the 
full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a 
tropical storm to its dissipation below tropical depression intensity).

********************************************************************************


1875/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this 
newly documented hurricane.  Storm is determined to have reached 
hurricane status based upon several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1875/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally
storm number 4. These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Storm is 
determined to have reached hurricane force based upon reports from the 
ship "E.E. Ruckett".

********************************************************************************

1876/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this 
newly documented hurricane.  970 mb central pressure suggests
82 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt 
chosen for best track.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon the 970 mb central pressure measurement.

********************************************************************************

1876/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 1.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Inland decay 
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
Hispanola, Cuba and the NE United States.  Used accelerated decay rate to 
take into account enhanced topography over Hispanola and Cuba.  990 mb 
central pressure (twice) suggests 64 kt from the southern wind-pressure 
relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 991 mb central pressure 
suggests 63 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt 
chosen for best track. 999 mb central pressure suggests 49 kt from the 
southern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track.  
985 mb central pressure suggests 68 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track, which is reduced as
storm was inland at this position.  A central pressure of 980 mb at
landfall is estimated, which suggests 75 kt from the subtropical
latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane intensity in the Caribbean  based 
upon damage accounts from St. Kitts and Vieques and upon the 990 mb and 
991 mb central pressure measurements.  Storm is determined to have
regained hurricane intensity in the Atlantic based upon ship and land 
(Cape Lookout, North Carolina) wind reports as well as the 980 mb estimated 
central pressure at landfall.

1876/02 - 2003 REVISION:

05230 09/12/1876 M= 8  2 SNBR= 165 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
05230 09/12/1876 M= 8  2 SNBR= 168 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***

05235 09/12*177 585  70    0*177 597  70    0*179 610  70    0*180 621  70    0
05235 09/12*177 585  70    0*177 597  70    0*179 610  80    0*180 621  90    0
                                                       **               **

05240 09/13*180 634  70    0*181 643  70  990*182 653  70  990*184 666  70  991
05240 09/13*180 634 100    0*180 646 100    0*181 660  90    0*183 676  70  991 
                    ***      *** *** ***  *** *** *** ***  *** *** ***      

05245 09/14*187 684  70    0*190 701  60    0*192 720  50    0*197 734  50    0
05245 09/14*186 692  70    0*189 707  60    0*193 720  50    0*197 734  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          ***                       

05250 09/15*201 748  50    0*204 761  50    0*207 776  50    0*210 786  50    0
05250 09/15*201 748  70    0*204 761  60    0*207 776  50    0*210 786  50    0
                     **               **

05255 09/16*217 796  50    0*229 800  50  999*245 800  60    0*266 794  60    0
05260 09/17*288 786  70    0*314 783  70    0*335 778  80  980*360 773  60  985
05260 09/17*288 786  70    0*314 783  70    0*335 778  80  980*360 773  70  985
                                                                        **

05265 09/18*382 773  50    0*408 781  40    0*425 775  40    0*430 761  40    0
05265 09/18*382 773  60  987*408 781  50    0*425 775  40    0*430 761  40    0
                     **  ***          **

05270 09/19*430 745  30    0*427 730  30    0*423 715  30    0*420 700  30    0
05275 HR NC1      
05275 HR NC1 VA1     
             ***

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
2-9/17/1876    1400Z 34.4N  77.6W   80kt  1     980mb     NC1
2-9/17/1876    1400Z 34.4N  77.6W   80kt  1     980mb     NC1,VA1
                                                              ***

Boose et al.'s (2003) analysis of hurricanes that made landfall in Puerto
Rico documented that this hurricane caused widespread Fujita-scale F2 damage
and occasional F3 destruction.  Additionally, the 990 mb pressures originally
thought to be central pressures in HURDAT were found, instead, to be
peripheral pressure measurements.  Thus this hurricane is estimated
here to be a Category 3 (100 kt) at landfall in Puerto Rico, a major
hurricane.  Mitchell's (1924) report also allowed for changes to both track
and intensity.  A peripheral pressure of 979 mb (11 UTC on the 13th)
suggests winds of at least 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship.  Mitchell's report estimated an eye diameter of 9 nmi and
rapid translational velocity of about 17 kt, both of which would suggest
increases in maximum winds above the standard wind-pressure relationship.
These facts are consistent with a 100 kt hurricane at landfall.  A central
pressure of 991 mb (at 1530 UTC on the 13th) after the hurricane
transited the spine of Puerto Rico suggests winds of 63 kt.  Due to the
small size and fast translational velocity, 70 kt is chosen for the
best track.  Additionally, a re-analysis by Perez (2000 and personal 
communication) of Cuban hurricanes indicate that this system re-attained 
hurricane force at landfall in Cuba as a Category 1 hurricane based upon 
moderate wind damage on the eastern end of the island.  Winds are adjusted 
accordingly on the 14th and 15th.  Observations of sustained hurricane force 
winds in Cape Henry, Virginia from Roth and Cobb's (2001) Virginia Hurricane 
History are the basis for slightly boosting winds late on the 17th and early 
on the 18th.  A central pressure of 987 mb (at 2130Z on the 17th) suggest
winds of 66 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen
for best track because of inland location.  The hurricane is known as 
"San Felipe" for its impacts in Puerto Rico (Boose et al. 2003).

********************************************************************************

1876/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 2.  

********************************************************************************

1876/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this 
newly documented hurricane. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria 
(1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America with an
accelerated decay rate to account for enhanced topography.  The storm is
determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from
the ship "Nile" and from the destruction that occurred in Nicaragua.

********************************************************************************

1876/05:  Two major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  The first
is to start the track of the tropical cyclone in the southwest 
Caribbean Sea to take into account heavy swells observed in Tunas de
Zaza, Cuba as reported in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  The second major
change is to position the hurricane on 12 UTC 20th of October near 
Melbourne, Florida based upon observations reported in Doehring et al. (1994).
Otherwise, track is reasonably and dramatically altered from that shown in 
Neumann et al. (1993) - originally storm number 3 - by Partagas and Diaz.  
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds 
over Cuba and Florida. 971 mb central pressure suggests 88 kt using the 
southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track.  973 mb 
central pressure suggests 86 kt using the southern wind-pressure 
relationship - 90 kt chosen.  976 mb central pressure suggests 80 kt using 
the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best 
track.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon 
destruction reported in Grand Cayman and Cuba, the central pressure 
observations of 971, 973 and 976 mb, several ship reports and wind 
observations from Key West, Florida.

1876/05 - 2003 REVISION:

05350 10/12/1876 M=12  5 SNBR= 168 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
05350 10/12/1876 M=12  5 SNBR= 171 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***

05355 10/12*120 790  40    0*122 790  40    0*124 790  50    0*126 790  50    0
05360 10/13*128 790  50    0*130 791  50    0*132 792  50    0*135 792  50    0
05365 10/14*138 794  50    0*141 795  50    0*144 796  50    0*147 797  50    0
05370 10/15*150 798  50    0*154 799  50    0*158 800  50    0*162 801  50    0
05375 10/16*166 802  50    0*170 803  50    0*174 804  60    0*178 805  60    0
05380 10/17*182 806  70    0*186 807  70    0*190 808  80    0*194 809  80    0
05385 10/18*197 811  90    0*202 813  90    0*207 816  90    0*212 818  90    0
05385 10/18*197 811  90    0*202 813  90    0*207 815  90    0*212 817  90    0
                                                  ***              ***

05390 10/19*217 819  90    0*221 819  90    0*227 820  90    0*236 820  90  971
05390 10/19*217 819 100    0*223 822 100    0*227 823 100  958*236 823  90    0 
                    ***      *** *** ***          *** ***  ***     ***      ***

05395 10/20*247 819  90  973*260 813  90    0*275 805  80    0*288 796  80  976
05400 10/21*300 788  80    0*310 779  80    0*319 767  80    0*325 749  80    0
05405 10/22*330 726  80    0*333 698  80    0*335 678  70    0*335 666  70    0
05410 10/23*338 656  70    0*339 646  70    0*340 635  60    0*342 620  60    0
05415 HRBFL2CFL1

Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has revealed that the central pressure for 
this hurricane was 958 mb (at Bejucal on the 19th), which suggests winds of 
102 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used for the 
best track.  This is consistent with the assessment of landfall as a 
Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba (Perez 2000).  The original listing 
of 971 mb for a central pressure (18Z on the 19th) was determined to be, 
instead, a peripheral pressure.  The track is shifted slightly to the west to 
take into account this new center fix location.  The hurricane is known as El 
Huracan de Gran Cayman-La Habana for its impacts in Cuba (Perez 2000).

********************************************************************************


1877/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.  The best track provided 
appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone 
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below 
tropical storm intensity).

********************************************************************************


1877/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made 
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds 
over SE United States after final landfall in Florida.  Storm is determined 
to have reached hurricane intensity based upon the description of winds and 
effects along the Gulf coast.  The best track provided appears to describe 
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a 
tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation below 
tropical storm intensity).

1877/02 - 2011 REVISION:

05640 09/14/1877 M= 8  2 SNBR= 174 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
05645 09/14*215 920  40    0*219 924  40    0*222 930  40    0*229 936  40    0*
05650 09/15*235 941  50    0*241 946  50    0*247 950  50    0*252 951  50    0*
05655 09/16*259 953  60    0*264 953  60    0*270 953  60    0*274 951  60    0*
05660 09/17*278 951  70    0*282 948  70    0*285 945  70    0*287 938  70    0*
05665 09/18*288 933  70    0*289 925  70    0*290 916  70    0*293 906  70    0*
05670 09/19*295 898  70    0*297 890  70    0*300 880  70    0*303 869  70    0*
05675 09/20*306 859  60    0*308 846  50    0*310 836  40    0*311 824  40    0*
05680 09/21*312 811  40    0*313 800  40    0*313 786  40    0*315 768  40    0*
05685 HR LA1AFL1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
2-9/18/1877    1600Z 29.2N  91.0W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   LA1
2-9/18/1877    1600Z 29.2N  91.0W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   LA1
                                                      ***

2-9/19/1877    2000Z 30.4N  86.6W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AFL1
2-9/19/1877    2000Z 30.4N  86.6W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AFL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and later Florida as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested 
a central pressure at landfall in both locations of 985 mb from the Gulf of 
Mexico pressure-wind relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind 
relationship for cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure 
is needed - 982 mb - for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central 
pressure at U.S. landfall is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall 
listing for both landfalls.  This is not explicitly added into HURDAT because 
this central pressure value is an estimate, not an observation or directly 
analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1877/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.  Storm is determined to have 
reached hurricane force based upon reports from the ship "Harlcy John" 
and from wind reports at St. Paul Island, Canada.

********************************************************************************

1877/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds 
over the eastern United States.  Storm tide is reported as 12' for St.
Marks, Florida from Barnes (1998).  Storm is determined to have reached major 
hurricane intensity based upon storm tide in St. Marks as well as reports from
the ship "Sarah Hall".

05655 09/21/1877 M=15  4 SNBR= 172 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
05655 09/21/1877 M=15  4 SNBR= 175 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***

05660 09/21*117 555  50    0*117 565  50    0*117 577  60    0*118 591  60    0
05665 09/22*118 605  70    0*118 620  70    0*117 633  80    0*116 644  80    0
05670 09/23*116 658  90    0*116 670  90    0*117 680  90    0*118 691  90    0
05675 09/24*121 703  90    0*123 714  90    0*127 725  90    0*130 736  90    0
05680 09/25*133 746  80    0*137 759  80    0*140 770  80    0*143 780  80    0
05685 09/26*147 791  70    0*150 801  70    0*153 810  70    0*157 816  70    0
05690 09/27*161 821  70    0*167 826  70    0*171 831  70    0*177 836  70    0
05695 09/28*182 843  70    0*189 851  70    0*195 855  70    0*201 859  70    0
05700 09/29*206 861  70    0*212 864  70    0*219 868  70    0*224 870  70    0
05705 09/30*227 871  70    0*234 873  70    0*237 875  70    0*244 876  70    0
05705 09/30*229 871  70    0*234 873  70    0*239 875  70    0*244 877  70    0
            ***                               ***                  ***

05710 10/01*247 878  80    0*254 878  80    0*260 876  80    0*265 876  80    0
05710 10/01*249 878  80    0*254 878  80    0*260 877  80    0*265 876  80    0
            ***                                   ***

05715 10/02*271 875  90    0*275 873  90    0*280 870  90    0*288 864  90    0
05720 10/03*295 859 100    0*301 853  90    0*307 845  70    0*317 833  50    0
05725 10/04*328 821  40    0*339 808  40    0E350 793  50    0E369 774  50    0
05730 10/05E393 749  60    0E408 724  60    0E420 695  50    0E435 660  50    0
05735 HRAFL3 GA1

Track adjusted slightly to provide for a more realistic translational velocity.


1877/04 - 2006 REVISION:

05735 09/21/1877 M=15  4 SNBR= 176 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
05740 09/21*117 555  50    0*117 565  50    0*117 577  60    0*118 591  60    0*
05745 09/22*118 605  70    0*118 620  70    0*117 633  80    0*116 644  80    0*
05750 09/23*116 658  90    0*116 670  90    0*117 680  90    0*118 691  90    0*
05755 09/24*121 703  90    0*123 714  90    0*127 725  90    0*130 736  90    0*
05760 09/25*133 746  80    0*137 759  80    0*140 770  80    0*143 780  80    0*
05765 09/26*147 791  70    0*150 801  70    0*153 810  70    0*157 816  70    0*
05770 09/27*161 821  70    0*167 826  70    0*171 831  70    0*177 836  70    0*
05775 09/28*182 843  70    0*189 851  70    0*195 855  70    0*201 859  70    0*
05780 09/29*206 861  70    0*212 864  70    0*219 868  70    0*224 870  70    0*
05785 09/30*229 871  70    0*234 873  70    0*239 875  70    0*244 877  70    0*
05790 10/01*249 878  80    0*254 878  80    0*260 877  80    0*265 876  80    0*
05795 10/02*271 875  90    0*275 873  90    0*280 870  90    0*288 864  90    0*
05800 10/03*295 859 100    0*301 853  90    0*307 845  70    0*317 833  50    0*
05805 10/04*328 821  40    0*339 808  40    0E350 793  50    0E369 774  50    0*
05810 10/05E393 749  60    0E408 724  60    0E420 695  50    0E435 660  50    0*
05815 HRAFL3 GA1                                                                
05815 HRAFL3IGA1                                                                
            ****

Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's 
Atlantic coast.

1877/04 - 2011 REVISION:

05735 09/21/1877 M=15  4 SNBR= 176 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
05740 09/21*117 555  50    0*117 565  50    0*117 577  60    0*118 591  60    0*
05745 09/22*118 605  70    0*118 620  70    0*117 633  80    0*116 644  80    0*
05750 09/23*116 658  90    0*116 670  90    0*117 680  90    0*118 691  90    0*
05755 09/24*121 703  90    0*123 714  90    0*127 725  90    0*130 736  90    0*
05760 09/25*133 746  80    0*137 759  80    0*140 770  80    0*143 780  80    0*
05765 09/26*147 791  70    0*150 801  70    0*153 810  70    0*157 816  70    0*
05770 09/27*161 821  70    0*167 826  70    0*171 831  70    0*177 836  70    0*
05775 09/28*182 843  70    0*189 851  70    0*195 855  70    0*201 859  70    0*
05780 09/29*206 861  70    0*212 864  70    0*219 868  70    0*224 870  70    0*
05785 09/30*229 871  70    0*234 873  70    0*239 875  70    0*244 877  70    0*
05790 10/01*249 878  80    0*254 878  80    0*260 877  80    0*265 876  80    0*
05795 10/02*271 875  90    0*275 873  90    0*280 870  90    0*288 864  90    0*
05800 10/03*295 859 100    0*301 853  90    0*307 845  70    0*317 833  50    0*
05805 10/04*328 821  40    0*339 808  40    0E350 793  50    0E369 774  50    0*
05810 10/05E393 749  60    0E408 724  60    0E420 695  50    0E435 660  50    0*
05815 HRAFL3IGA1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-10/3/1877    0500Z 30.0N  85.5W  100kt  3    ---   (960mb)   AFL3,IGA1
4-10/3/1877    0500Z 30.0N  85.5W  100kt  3    ---   (955mb)   AFL3,IGA1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 100 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 960 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 955 mb - 
for a 100 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1877/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).

********************************************************************************

1877/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  

********************************************************************************

1877/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.

********************************************************************************

1877/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  The best track provided appears to 
describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as 
a tropical storm until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).

********************************************************************************


1878/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model 
of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
Florida.  

1878/01 - 2003 REVISION:

05790 07/01/1878 M= 3  1 SNBR= 175 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
05790 07/01/1878 M= 3  1 SNBR= 178 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

05795 07/01*254 873  40    0*254 866  40    0*255 860  40    0*256 850  40    0
05800 07/02*257 843  40    0*258 835  40    0*259 824  40    0*263 810  40    0
05800 07/02*257 843  40    0*258 835  40    0*259 824  40    0*263 810  30    0
                                                                        **

05805 07/03*273 796  40    0*280 783  40    0*287 770  40    0*294 756  40    0
05810 TS 

No weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over Florida,
even though description mentioned utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
inland decay model.  In this revision, Kaplan and DeMaria's model was
used to reduce the winds after landfall in Florida on the 2nd.

********************************************************************************

1878/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Mexico with an accelerated 
decay rate to account for enhance topography.  The storm is determined to 
have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ship "Padang".
The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this 
tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to its peak as a 
hurricane until its dissipation below tropical depression intensity).
  
1878/02 - 2003 REVISION:

05905 08/08/1878 M=12  2 SNBR= 178 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
05905 08/08/1878 M=12  2 SNBR= 181 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

05910 08/08*150 605  40    0*149 610  40    0*147 615  40    0*146 619  40    0
05915 08/09*146 624  40    0*146 628  40    0*145 633  40    0*145 641  40    0
05920 08/10*144 649  40    0*144 656  40    0*143 665  40    0*142 676  40    0
05925 08/11*141 686  40    0*140 700  40    0*140 713  40    0*141 730  40    0
05930 08/12*143 746  50    0*145 761  50    0*150 775  50    0*159 786  50    0
05935 08/13*166 796  50    0*174 806  50    0*180 815  50    0*187 825  50    0
05940 08/14*195 833  60    0*202 841  60    0*210 850  60    0*215 856  60    0
05945 08/15*220 861  70    0*225 868  70    0*228 875  70    0*229 881  70    0
05950 08/16*230 890  70    0*230 896  70    0*230 903  70    0*230 911  70    0
05955 08/17*230 921  70    0*230 930  70    0*230 940  70    0*230 948  70    0
05960 08/18*229 956  70    0*227 965  70    0*227 975  70    0*226 985  40    0
05960 08/18*229 956  70    0*228 965  70    0*227 975  70    0*226 985  40    0
                             ***

05965 08/19*225 992  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
05970 HR

Track adjusted slightly to provide a more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************


1878/03:  Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this 
newly documented hurricane is to extend the storm for a full day
to the 21st of August as suggested by Partagas and Diaz. 963 mb 
central pressure suggests 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure 
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track because of extremely 
high latitude and cold waters.  Storm determined to have reached
hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports, the 963 mb
central pressure measurement and the destruction that occurred at 
Magdalene Islands, Canada.

********************************************************************************

1878/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this 
newly documented hurricane.  996 mb central pressures suggests
55 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship -
50 kt chosen for best track.  972 mb central pressure suggests
84 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship -
90 kt chosen for best track.  975 mb central pressure suggests
78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen
for best track.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane 
intensity based upon the 972 and 975 mb central pressure readings
as well as several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1878/05 - 2000 ORIGINAL:

Major track changes are made to this storm from that shown
in Partagas and Diaz (1995b) and Neumann et al. (1993), originally
storm number 3.  These include indicating a loop in the track from 
the 8th to the 11th of September rather than a stationary track.  
Loop determined primarily from observations at Key West reported in 
Partagas and Diaz.  A pressure reading of 984 mb not in the hurricane's
center (at 06 UTC, 2nd of September) suggests winds of at least
72 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen 
for best track.  A pressure reading of 999 mb not in the storm's 
center (at 06 UTC on the 5th) suggests winds of at least 49 kt from the 
southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track.  
A pressure reading of 1000 mb not in the storm's center (on 18 UTC
on the 7th) suggests winds of 47 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 50 kt are chosen for best track.  A pressure reading
of 990 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 11th) 
suggests winds of 63 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt is chosen for best track.  A pressure reading
of 993 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 12th) 
suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.  Inland decay 
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
Hispanola, Cuba and the eastern United States.  Used an accelerated
decay rate for Hispanola and Cuba to account for enhanced topography.  
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity in the Caribbean 
based upon the 984 mb peripheral pressure, the destruction in Trinidad, 
Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba, and several ship reports.  The storm 
regained hurricane force status in the Gulf of Mexico based upon several 
ship reports.  The storm attained hurricane intensity for a third time in
the Atlantic Ocean based upon the periphery pressure readings of 990
and 993 mb, reports from the ships "Sabre" and "City of New York",
as well as wind reports from Cape Lookout, North Carolina.


1878/05 - 2003 REVISION:

05935 09/01/1878 M=13  5 SNBR= 181 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
05935 09/01/1878 M=13  5 SNBR= 184 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***                        *

05940 09/01* 85 542  50    0* 87 556  50    0* 90 570  60    0* 96 584  60    0
05945 09/02*103 599  70    0*113 617  80    0*123 633  80    0*133 648  80    0
05950 09/03*143 663  80    0*152 678  80    0*160 693  80    0*167 701  80    0
05955 09/04*175 711  80    0*182 721  80    0*190 730  70    0*196 739  70    0
05955 09/04*175 711  80    0*182 721  70    0*189 730  60    0*195 739  70    0
                                      **      ***      **      *** 

05960 09/05*199 746  70    0*202 756  60    0*205 766  60    0*207 771  60    0
05960 09/05*200 746  70    0*205 756  60    0*210 766  60    0*215 771  60    0
            ***              ***              ***              ***

05965 09/06*211 778  50    0*214 783  50    0*217 786  50    0*221 793  50    0
05965 09/06*219 778  50    0*221 784  50    0*223 790  50    0*225 795  50    0
            ***              *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

05970 09/07*222 799  50    0*226 804  50    0*230 806  50    0*237 809  50    0
05970 09/07*228 800  50    0*231 805  50    0*236 808  50    0*243 809  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** 

05975 09/08*246 810  60    0*252 810  60    0*260 815  60    0*266 821  60    0
05975 09/08*250 810  60    0*258 812  50    0*265 815  40    0*269 819  40    0
            ***              *** ***  **      ***      **      *** ***  **

05980 09/09*266 829  70    0*259 831  70    0*255 834  70    0*252 831  70    0
05980 09/09*272 824  40    0*274 829  50    0*276 833  60    0*278 835  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

05985 09/10*251 826  70    0*252 818  70    0*260 811  60    0*270 808  50    0
05985 09/10*280 834  80    0*283 830  90    0*287 825  80  970*292 820  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **  

05990 09/11*279 806  50    0*288 806  60    0*297 806  70    0*305 806  70    0
05990 09/11*297 815  60  985*301 811  70    0*305 809  80    0*309 807  80    0
            *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

05995 09/12*312 806  80    0*317 806  80    0*325 805  80    0*345 801  60    0
05995 09/12*313 806  80    0*318 805  80    0*325 804  80    0*340 801  60    0
            ***                  ***              ***          ***

06000 09/13*368 798  50    0E392 794  50    0E415 790  40    0E440 785  40    0
06000 09/13*365 798  50    0E390 794  50    0E415 790  40    0E440 785  40    0
            ***              ***

06005 HRBFL1 NC1 SC1 GA1    
06005 HRBFL2DFL1 NC1 SC1 GA1    
        ********

U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date          Time   Lat    Lon     Max  Landfall
                                     Winds  State
5- 9/ 8/1878$   0100Z  24.7   81.0    60     FL
5- 9/ 7/1878$   2100Z  24.7   80.9    60     FL
      *         *****         ****

5- 9/ 8/1878$   0600Z  25.2   81.0    60     FL
5- 9/ 8/1878$   0200Z  25.2   81.0    60     FL
                *****       

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
5-9/10/1878$   1000Z 25.7N  81.3W   70kt  1    (985mb)    BFL1
5-9/10/1878$   1100Z 28.6N  82.6W   90kt  2    (970mb)    BFL2,DFL1
               ***** *****  *****   ****  *    *******    **** ****

5-9/12/1878    1000Z 32.2N  80.5W   80kt  1    (976mb)    NC1,SC1,GA1
5-9/12/1878    1200Z 32.5N  80.4W   80kt  1    (976mb)    NC1,SC1,GA1
               ****  ****   *****


Hurricane is revised from the initial analysis due to the inclusion of work 
by Ho (1989).  In particular, additional observations were provided from
Key West, Punta Rassa and St. Augustine, FL that provided alterations in
both track and intensity.  Observations from Key West showed that the
system made its closest approach to the east of that town around 21 UTC on the 
7th as a tropical storm, made landfall over the Florida peninsula shortly
thereafter.  All measurements indicated that it proceeded slowly to the north 
and drifted back offshore, where it reintensified.  Early on the 10th,
it began moving back toward the east and made landfall just before 12 UTC
on the 10th, likely north of Tampa.  Observations from St. Augustine showed 
that the center of the hurricane passed overhead around 02 UTC on the 11th 
with a central pressure of 985 mb.  (The wind intensity from St. Augustine is 
in conflict with those at nearby Jacksonville and it is believed that the
observer may have had a high bias at the former station.  However, strong
winds along the coast from the 7th to the 9th were likely due to a 
combination of the system's wind field along with a large pressure gradient 
induced by a strong ridge to the north.  This ridge also blocked the storm 
and induced a slow motion for the same days.)  The hurricane's track was 
altered from the 7th until the 13th based upon these new data.  The 985 mb 
central pressure corresponds to 70 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure 
relationship - 70 kt used in the best track after oceanfall back to the
Atlantic at 06 UTC on the 11th .  From this 985 mb central pressure and that 
the hurricane was over Florida for about 16 hours, a 970 mb central pressure
was estimated for its landfall in Southwest Florida from the pressure-
decay relationship of Ho et al. (1987).  A 970 mb central pressure suggests
winds of 89 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt
is chosen for the winds at landfall.  Winds are reduced on the 4th to 
account for realistic weakening while tracking over Hispanola.  Track also 
adjusted during trek over Cuba from the 4th until the 7th based upon 
re-analysis efforts for Cuban hurricanes by Perez (2000).  Assignment of 
Category 1 hurricane landfall in Cuba agrees with assessment by Perez (2000).


1878/05 - 2004 REVISION:

06080 09/01/1878 M=13  5 SNBR= 184 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
06080 09/01/1878 M=13  5 SNBR= 185 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***

06085 09/01* 85 542  50    0* 87 556  50    0* 90 570  60    0* 96 584  60    0
06090 09/02*103 599  70    0*113 617  80    0*123 633  80    0*133 648  80    0
06095 09/03*143 663  80    0*152 678  80    0*160 693  80    0*167 701  80    0
06100 09/04*175 711  80    0*182 721  70    0*189 730  60    0*195 739  70    0
06105 09/05*200 746  70    0*205 756  60    0*210 766  60    0*215 771  60    0
06110 09/06*219 778  50    0*221 784  50    0*223 790  50    0*225 795  50    0
06115 09/07*228 800  50    0*231 805  50    0*236 808  50    0*243 809  50    0
06120 09/08*250 810  60    0*258 812  50    0*265 815  40    0*269 819  40    0
06125 09/09*272 824  40    0*274 829  50    0*276 833  60    0*278 835  70    0
06130 09/10*280 834  80    0*283 830  90    0*287 825  80  970*292 820  70    0
06135 09/11*297 815  60  985*301 811  70    0*305 809  80    0*309 807  80    0
06140 09/12*313 806  80    0*318 805  80    0*325 804  80    0*340 801  60    0
06145 09/13*365 798  50    0E390 794  50    0E415 790  40    0E440 785  40    0
06150 HRBFL2DFL1 NC1 SC1 GA1
06150 HRAFL2BFL2DFL1 SC1 GA1
        ****         *** 

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
5-9/10/1878$   1100Z 28.6N  82.6W  90kt   2     (970mb)   BFL2,DFL1
5-9/10/1878$   1100Z 28.6N  82.6W  90kt   2     (970mb)   AFL2,BFL2,DFL1
                                                          ****
5-9/12/1878    1200Z 32.5N  80.4W  80kt   1     (976mb)   NC1,SC1,GA1
5-9/12/1878    1200Z 32.5N  80.4W  80kt   1     (976mb)   SC1,GA1
                                                          ***

After a thorough review of all U.S. landfalling hurricanes for the 1851 to 
1910 period by Dickinson et al. (2004 and pers. comm.) using their
numerical analysis and modeling system, two hurricanes were found to have 
inconsistencies between the assigned Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and the 
estimated maximum 1-min surface winds:  1855/05 and 1878/05.  In this case, 
the assignment of Category 1 hurricane impact for North Carolina does not
appear consistent with landfall in southern South Carolina.  The original
assessment of Category 1 conditions for North Carolina were based upon
observed 65 kt winds at Cape Lookout (see above).  It has subsequently
been learned since 2000 that the 4 cup Robinson anemometer of the time had a 
severe high bias.  These 5 min observed winds of 65 kt convert to 50 kt 
after accounting for their high bias (Fergusson and Covert 1924) and then to 
53 kt after converting from a 5 min to a maximum 1 min wind (Powell et al. 
1996).  While peak 1 min winds were likely somewhat higher than this somewhere
in North Carolina, direct and indirect evidence suggests that only tropical
storm conditions impacted the state.  There were three other peak observations
available between Myrtle Beach, SC and Cape Lookout, NC:  Smithville, NC (now 
Southport) - SE 42 kt, Wilmington, NC - SE 26 kt, Sloop Point, NC (northeast
of Wilmington near Top Sail Beach) - 55 kt (estimated), and Cape Lookout.  
Thus these other measurements are also consistent with tropical storm
conditions in North Carolina and North Carolina is removed from
the listing as having sustained hurricane force conditions from this
hurricane. Northwest Florida added as Category 2 impact due to location
of the landfall.


1878/05 - 2006 REVISION:

06120 09/01/1878 M=13  5 SNBR= 185 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
06125 09/01* 85 542  50    0* 87 556  50    0* 90 570  60    0* 96 584  60    0*
06130 09/02*103 599  70    0*113 617  80    0*123 633  80    0*133 648  80    0*
06135 09/03*143 663  80    0*152 678  80    0*160 693  80    0*167 701  80    0*
06140 09/04*175 711  80    0*182 721  70    0*189 730  60    0*195 739  70    0*
06145 09/05*200 746  70    0*205 756  60    0*210 766  60    0*215 771  60    0*
06150 09/06*219 778  50    0*221 784  50    0*223 790  50    0*225 795  50    0*
06155 09/07*228 800  50    0*231 805  50    0*236 808  50    0*243 809  50    0*
06160 09/08*250 810  60    0*258 812  50    0*265 815  40    0*269 819  40    0*
06165 09/09*272 824  40    0*274 829  50    0*276 833  60    0*278 835  70    0*
06170 09/10*280 834  80    0*283 830  90    0*287 825  80  970*292 820  70    0*
06175 09/11*297 815  60  985*301 811  70    0*305 809  80    0*309 807  80    0*
06180 09/12*313 806  80    0*318 805  80    0*325 804  80    0*340 801  60    0*
06185 09/13*365 798  50    0E390 794  50    0E415 790  40    0E440 785  40    0*
06190 HRBFL2DFL1 SC1 GA1                                                        
06190 HRAFL2BFL2DFL1 SC1 GA1                                                
        ****
            
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia 
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should have been listed as a Category 2
hurricane for northwestern Florida ("AFL") as well as southwestern Florida,
based upon the intensity of the hurricane at landfall and its location.
Thus "AFL2" is added into the listing of U.S. continental hurricane
impacts.

********************************************************************************

1878/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 4.  Storm is 
determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship 
reports.  

********************************************************************************

1878/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally
storm number 5.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
Haiti with an accelerated decay rate to account for enhanced topography.  
938 mb central pressure suggests 105 kt from the northern wind-pressure 
relationship - 110 kt chosen for best track.  This storm is determined 
to have reached hurricane intensity in the Caribbean Sea based upon 
reports from the ships "Princess Alexandra" and "William Phipps".  The 
hurricane is determined to have reached major hurricane status based 
upon the central pressure reading of 938 mb as well as several ship 
reports. 

06160 09/24/1878 M=15  7 SNBR= 183 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
06160 09/24/1878 M=15  7 SNBR= 186 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

06165 09/24*151 719  40    0*155 719  40    0*160 720  50    0*162 720  50    0
06170 09/25*164 720  60    0*167 721  60    0*170 721  70    0*176 723  70    0
06170 09/25*164 720  60    0*167 721  60    0*170 721  70    0*176 722  70    0
                                                                   ***

06175 09/26*180 724  70    0*184 724  60    0*187 725  50    0*192 726  50    0
06175 09/26*180 723  70    0*184 724  60    0*187 725  50    0*192 726  40    0
                ***                                                     **

06180 09/27*195 726  50    0*197 726  50    0*201 726  60    0*205 726  60    0
06180 09/27*195 726  40    0*197 726  40    0*201 726  50    0*205 727  60    0
                     **               **               **          ***

06185 09/28*209 728  70    0*212 728  70    0*216 730  70    0*221 731  70    0
06185 09/28*209 728  70    0*212 729  70    0*216 730  70    0*221 731  70    0
                                 ***

06190 09/29*224 733  80    0*227 734  80    0*232 735  80    0*236 735  80    0
06195 09/30*239 735  90    0*242 735  90    0*247 735  90    0*254 735  90    0
06200 10/01*258 735 100    0*263 734 100    0*268 733 100    0*274 731 100    0
06205 10/02*276 731 110    0*280 731 110    0*285 730 110    0*289 729 110    0
06210 10/03*293 726 120    0*298 725 120    0*302 721 120    0*308 719 120    0
06215 10/04*314 715 120    0*319 711 120    0*325 706 120    0*333 700 120    0
06220 10/05*339 693 110    0*344 686 110    0*350 677 110    0*360 666 110    0
06225 10/06*373 648 110    0*385 626 110    0*397 605 110    0*407 583 110    0
06230 10/07*417 555 110    0*427 519 110    0*435 485 110  938*448 443 100    0
06235 10/08*462 395 100    0*475 355 100    0*485 310  90    0*495 270  90    0
06240 HR

Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion.  Winds
slightly decreased on the 26th and 27th, due to transit over Hispanola
and accounting for reasonable weakening.

********************************************************************************

1878/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made 
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally
storm number 6.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
the SE United States.  982 mb central pressure suggests 71 kt from the 
northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.  The 
storm is determined to have reached hurricane status over the Atlantic 
Ocean based upon several ship reports as well as the 982 mb central 
pressure reading.

1878/08 - 2003 REVISION:

06245 10/09/1878 M= 7  8 SNBR= 184 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
06245 10/09/1878 M= 7  8 SNBR= 187 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

06250 10/09*235 913  40    0*246 911  40    0*256 906  40    0*263 901  40    0
06255 10/10*268 896  50    0*273 891  50    0*281 881  50    0*292 866  50    0
06260 10/11*306 838  50    0*315 808  50    0*327 781  60    0*335 766  60    0
06260 10/11*306 838  40    0*315 808  40    0*327 781  50    0*335 766  60    0
                     **               **               **

06265 10/12*345 750  70    0*358 736  70    0*370 725  70    0*388 705  70    0
06270 10/13*402 681  70    0*418 651  70    0*429 626  70  982*438 597  70    0
06275 10/14*445 568  70    0*452 533  70    0*455 500  70    0*455 475  70    0
06280 10/15E455 440  60    0E455 409  60    0E455 375  60    0E455 340  60    0
06285 HR

Winds reduced on the 11th to account for weakening while tracking over
Florida and Georgia, utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland 
decay model.  

********************************************************************************

1878/09:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 7.  Note 
that storms 8 and 9 likely merged as a large extratropical storm on 
the 16th of October.  The storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon several ship observations.

********************************************************************************


1878/10:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 8.  951 mb 
central pressure suggests 103 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track.  The storm is 
determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon the 
951 mb central pressure measurement.

********************************************************************************


1878/11:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 9.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria 
(1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States.  975 mb 
central pressure suggests 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure 
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track (storm was inland by this 
point suggesting lower winds than 78 kt, yet fast moving suggesting 
higher winds than 78 kt).  The best track provided appears to describe 
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a 
tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation as an 
extratropical storm).  The storm is determined to have reached hurricane 
intensity based upon destruction in Cuba and the mid-Atlantic U.S. 
states, wind reports in North Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey, and the 
central pressure reading.  

1878/11 - 2003 REVISION:

06280 10/18/1878 M= 8 11 SNBR= 187 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
06280 10/18/1878 M= 8 11 SNBR= 190 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***

06285 10/18*172 796  40    0*177 801  40    0*180 805  50    0*182 806  50    0
06290 10/19*185 809  60    0*187 811  60    0*190 813  60    0*194 816  60    0
06295 10/20*197 819  70    0*202 821  70    0*207 824  70    0*212 824  70    0
06295 10/20*197 819  70    0*202 821  70    0*207 824  80    0*212 824  80    0
                                                       **               **

06300 10/21*219 824  70    0*225 823  70    0*232 820  70    0*244 810  70    0
06300 10/21*219 824  90    0*225 822  90    0*232 818  80    0*244 810  70    0
                     **          ***  **          ***  **

06305 10/22*259 798  70    0*273 793  70    0*287 788  80    0*312 780  80    0
06305 10/22*259 798  70    0*273 793  70    0*287 788  80    0*307 780  80    0
                                                               ***

06310 10/23*340 776  90    0*365 775  80    0*389 770  80  975*405 760  70    0
06310 10/23*330 774  90  963*357 770  90    0*390 772  80  975*415 754  70    0
            *** ***      *** *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

06315 10/24*422 740  60    0*427 716  60    0*425 689  60    0*415 666  60    0
06315 10/24E427 736  60    0E429 714  50    0E425 688  50    0E415 666  50    0
           **** ***         **** ***  **     *    ***  **     *         **

06320 10/25E409 650  50    0E402 631  50    0E395 613  50    0E390 598  50    0
06325 HR NC2 VA1 MD1 DE1 NJ1 PA1


U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
11-10/23/1878  0100Z 34.4N  77.6W   90kt  2    (965mb) NC2,VA1,MD1,DE1,NJ1,PA1
11-10/23/1878  0400Z 34.8N  77.1W   90kt  2    (963mb) NC2,VA1,MD1,DE1,NJ1,PA1
               ***** *****  *****              *******

Re-analysis of Cuban hurricanes from Perez (2000) suggests that this
system impacted Cuba as a Category 2 hurricane based mainly upon wind-caused
damages, with a track slightly to the east of the original HURDAT estimate. 
Winds increased on the 20th and 21st and track altered on the 21st,
accordingly.
 
Altered track and intensity over the United States from the 22nd until
the 24th based upon re-analysis effort by Roth and Cobb (2000).  Changes
do indicate a later (04Z rather than 01Z) landfall along North Carolina.
They estimate a landfall central pressure of 963 mb which would correspond
to 92 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship.  90 kt is kept
for landfall intensity.  Additional observations were obtained from the
new report by Ramsey and Reilly (2003).  A 10 foot storm tide was observed 
in Little Creek, Delaware; 11 foot in Fort Mifflin, Pennsylvania; and 
12 foot in Pea Patch Island, Delaware (Ramsey and Reilly 2003).


1878/11 - 2006 REVISION:

06465 10/18/1878 M= 8 11 SNBR= 191 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
06470 10/18*172 796  40    0*177 801  40    0*180 805  50    0*182 806  50    0*
06475 10/19*185 809  60    0*187 811  60    0*190 813  60    0*194 816  60    0*
06480 10/20*197 819  70    0*202 821  70    0*207 824  80    0*212 824  80    0*
06485 10/21*219 824  90    0*225 822  90    0*232 818  80    0*244 810  70    0*
06490 10/22*259 798  70    0*273 793  70    0*287 788  80    0*307 780  80    0*
06495 10/23*330 774  90  963*357 770  90    0*390 772  80  975*415 754  70    0*
06500 10/24E427 736  60    0E429 714  50    0E425 688  50    0E415 666  50    0*
06505 10/25E409 650  50    0E402 631  50    0E395 613  50    0E390 598  50    0*
06510 HR NC2 VA1 MD1 DE1 NJ1
06510 HR NC2 VA1 MD1 DE1 NJ1IPA1  
                            ****

Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia 
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as causing Category
1 hurricane impact in Pennsylvania based upon the track and intensity
shown in HURDAT.  This is consistent with observations of high winds
and storm surge that occurred in Philadelphia.

********************************************************************************

1878/12:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 10.  Storm is also named the "San Rufo" for its 
impact in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic.  The best track provided 
appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its 
formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below tropical storm 
intensity).

********************************************************************************

1879/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this 
newly documented hurricane.  The storm is determined to have reached
hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1879/02:  Only substantial change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) is to alter 
the track near the U.S. eastern seaboard to accommodate observations 
described in Ho (1989).  Track has otherwise reasonable though large 
alterations by Partagas and Diaz (1995b) from that shown in Neumann et al. 
(1993), originally storm number 1.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States.  
Ho (1989) estimated 971 mb at landfall in North Carolina with a small radius 
of maximum wind (16 n mi).  971 mb central pressure suggests 85 kt from the 
subtropical wind-pressure relationship.  However, due to the small RMW, 
winds are chosen for the best track to be 100 kt. This is the basis for 
determining that this storm reached major hurricane intensity.  979 mb 
central pressure (while back over water) suggests winds of 74 kt from the 
northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen to take into account the 
small RMW.  984 mb central pressure (twice) suggest winds of 69 kt from the 
northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen, again because of small 
RMW.  The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of 
this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to its peak as
a major hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).

1879/02 - 2003 REVISION:

06425 08/13/1879 M= 8  2 SNBR= 190 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
06425 08/13/1879 M= 8  2 SNBR= 193 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***

06430 08/13*190 580  40    0*190 590  40    0*190 600  40    0*190 613  40    0
06435 08/14*191 629  40    0*192 645  40    0*192 656  40    0*195 668  40    0
06440 08/15*197 680  40    0*201 690  40    0*205 700  50    0*212 711  50    0
06445 08/16*217 721  60    0*225 729  60    0*232 736  70    0*242 746  70    0
06450 08/17*252 756  80    0*265 769  80    0*277 776  90    0*293 784  90    0
06455 08/18*312 784 100    0*328 779 100    0*345 768 100  971*373 754  90  979
06455 08/18*312 784 100    0*328 779 100    0*345 768 100  971*373 754  80  979
                                                                        **

06460 08/19*395 734  80  984*414 708  80  984*433 680  70    0*448 654  60    0
06460 08/19*395 734  70    0*414 708  70  984*433 680  60    0*448 654  60    0
                     **  ***          **               **

06465 08/20*465 617  60    0*482 583  60    0*493 550  50    0*502 515  50    0
06470 HR NC3 VA1 MA1
06470 HR NC3 VA2 
             *** ***

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
2-8/18/1879    1200Z 34.7N  76.7W  100kt  3      971mb     NC3,VA1
2-8/18/1879    1200Z 34.7N  76.7W  100kt  3      971mb     NC3,VA2
                                                               ***

2-8/19/1879    0600Z 41.4N  70.8W   80kt  1      984mb     MA1
2-8/19/1879    0600Z 41.4N  70.8W   60kt  TS     984mb     (None)
                                    **    **               ******


Analysis of this hurricane's impacts in Virginia by Roth and Cobb (2001)
from wind and storm surge caused damage suggest that Category 2 conditions
are more representative of what occurred in and around Norfolk, Virginia.
(Note that Category 1 sustained windspeeds were observed in Cape Henry,
Virginia before the anemometer was destroyed by the wind.  Presumably
higher winds would have been measured if the anemometer continued to 
function.)  A storm surge of 7' (personal communication - B. Jarvinen,
total storm tide of 8' from Roth and Cobb) was observed at Norfolk.  (No 
changes were needed to the 6 hourly intervals in HURDAT.)  

Boose et al. (2001) did not include this hurricane in their publication 
on New England hurricanes.  Boose (personal communication) indicated
that their analysis found only F0 damage in Massachusetts, New York and
Rhode Island, not reaching their criterion for hurricane-intensity impacts.  
The original supposition that the hurricane retained a tight RMW at a second
landfall in Massachusetts (after landfall in North Carolina) does not
have much substantiation, though the 984 mb central pressure is valid.  
Given the observations of only 40 kt in New England and lack of hurricane-
wind caused damages it appears that either the RMW stayed offshore, the
hurricane had weakened or both was true.  The 979 mb central pressure 
at 1930Z on the 18th had been utilized to support a 90 kt wind at 18Z,
under the supposition that the small RMW would cause the maximum winds to
be substantially higher than the northern wind-pressure relationship
suggested winds (of 74 kt).  This has been reduced slightly down to 80 kt
at 18Z on the 18th.  The 984 mb central pressure is used directly to 
estimate the peak winds while the hurricane made landfall - 69 kt from the 
northern pressure-wind relationship.  Thus 70 kt chosen for the best track 
at 06Z on the 19th, reduced from 80 kt.  Highest estimated wind in New 
England is 60 kt, as the RMW with hurricane force winds likely remained 
offshore.


1879/02 - 2006 REVISION:

06595 08/13/1879 M= 8  2 SNBR= 194 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
06600 08/13*190 580  40    0*190 590  40    0*190 600  40    0*190 613  40    0*
06605 08/14*191 629  40    0*192 645  40    0*192 656  40    0*195 668  40    0*
06610 08/15*197 680  40    0*201 690  40    0*205 700  50    0*212 711  50    0*
06615 08/16*217 721  60    0*225 729  60    0*232 736  70    0*242 746  70    0*
06620 08/17*252 756  80    0*265 769  80    0*277 776  90    0*293 784  90    0*
06625 08/18*312 784 100    0*328 779 100    0*345 768 100  971*373 754  90  979*
06630 08/19*395 734  80  984*414 708  70  984*433 680  60    0*448 654  60    0*
06635 08/20*465 617  60    0*482 583  60    0*493 550  50    0*502 515  50    0*
06640 HR NC3 VA2                                                                
06640 HR NC3 VA2 MA1 
                 ***

Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia 
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as causing a Category
1 hurricane impact in Massachusetts.  Previously, it was estimated that
the hurricane force winds stayed offshore as the hurricane clipped New England.
However, upon further inspection of the track and intensity, it is likely
that hurricane force winds were felt in southeastern Massachusetts.

********************************************************************************

1879/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 2.  These track changes appear to be reasonable.  Inland decay model 
of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Yucatan of 
Mexico and the SE United States.  982 mb estimated central pressure at 
landfall in Texas suggest 74 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure 
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track.  The storm is determined to 
have reached hurricane intensity while in the Caribbean based upon reports 
from the ship "Elvina".  The storm reintensified into a hurricane in the 
Gulf of Mexico based upon destruction reported in Orange, Texas and the 
estimated central pressure value.
 
1879/03 - 2003 REVISION:

06460 08/19/1879 M= 6  3 SNBR= 191 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
06460 08/19/1879 M= 6  3 SNBR= 194 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***                        *

06465 08/19*167 811  60    0*171 821  60    0*175 830  60    0*180 841  60    0
06470 08/20*185 854  70    0*191 865  70    0*197 876  70    0*202 890  60    0
06475 08/21*210 903  60    0*220 915  60    0*230 925  70    0*240 930  70    0
06480 08/22*250 935  70    0*261 938  70    0*273 940  80    0*281 941  80    0
06480 08/22*250 935  80    0*261 938  80    0*271 940  90    0*281 942  90    0
                     **               **      ***      **          ***  **

06485 08/23*290 943  80  982*300 944  70    0*310 943  50    0*322 938  40    0
06485 08/23*293 944  90  964*308 942  70    0*323 938  60  988*335 933  50    0
            *** ***  **  *** *** ***          *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **

06490 08/24*335 928  40    0*350 916  40    0*360 905  40    0*372 886  40    0
06490 08/24*344 926  40    0*352 916  30    0*360 905  30    0*368 886  30    0
            *** ***          ***      **               **      ***      **     

06495 HRCTX1 LA1
06495 HRCTX2 LA2
        **** ***

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
3-8/23/1879    0300Z 29.5N  94.4W   80kt  1      982mb     CTX1,LA1
3-8/23/1879    0200Z 29.6N  94.4W   90kt  2      964mb     CTX2,LA2
               ****  ****           **    *      ***       **** ***

Details of this hurricane near and after landfall were reconsidered given
the information from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) of a possible central 
pressure of 988 mb inland at Shreveport, Louisiana.  The central pressure
decay relationship from Ho et al. (1987) is utilized along with a
10 hour over land trek by the hurricane to estimate a 964 mb central
pressure at landfall.  The Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship
suggests winds of 95 kt - 90 kt chosen for the best track at landfall.
The 988 mb central pressure at Shreveport suggests winds of 65 kt from
the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure - 60 kt chosen for HURDAT.  The track and 
intensity were adjusted accordingly on the 22nd and 23rd.  Decay stage of 
this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation over land 
inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track,
leading to slight revisions downward in intensity on the 24th.

********************************************************************************

1879/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 3.  Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
the SE United States.  Morgan City's sea level pressure of 972 mb not in 
storm's center (at 12 UTC, the 1st of September) suggests winds of at 
least 86 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt 
chosen for best track.  Storm is determined to have reached major 
hurricane status at landfall based upon destruction described in Morgan 
City, Louisiana as well as the peripheral pressure report.

1879/04 - 2003 REVISION:

06500 08/29/1879 M= 5  4 SNBR= 192 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
06500 08/29/1879 M= 5  4 SNBR= 195 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***

06505 08/29*235 885  50    0*237 888  50    0*240 891  50    0*242 893  50    0
06510 08/30*244 896  70    0*247 900  70    0*250 903  80    0*254 906  80    0
06515 08/31*258 910  90    0*262 913  90    0*268 916 100    0*273 916 100    0
06515 08/31*258 910  90    0*262 913  90    0*268 915 100    0*273 916 100    0
                                                  ***

06520 09/01*278 917 110    0*283 916 110    0*288 916 110    0*299 911  90    0
06520 09/01*278 917 110    0*283 916 110    0*288 915 110    0*299 911  90    0
                                                  ***

06525 09/02*312 905  60    0*324 899  50    0*335 885  40    0*348 871  40    0
06525 09/02*312 905  60    0*324 899  50    0*335 885  40    0*348 871  30    0
                                                                        **

06530 HR LA3

Track altered slightly on the 31st and 1st to provide a more realistic
smooth track.  Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before 
dissipation over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the 
best track.

1879/04 - 2011 REVISION:

06685 08/29/1879 M= 5  4 SNBR= 196 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
06690 08/29*235 885  50    0*237 888  50    0*240 891  50    0*242 893  50    0*
06695 08/30*244 896  70    0*247 900  70    0*250 903  80    0*254 906  80    0*
06700 08/31*258 910  90    0*262 913  90    0*268 915 100    0*273 916 100    0*
06705 09/01*278 917 110    0*283 916 110    0*288 915 110    0*299 911  90    0*
06710 09/02*312 905  60    0*324 899  50    0*335 885  40    0*348 871  30    0*
06715 HR LA3                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-9/1/1879     1600Z 29.5N  91.4W  110kt  3    ---   (950mb)   LA3
4-9/1/1879     1600Z 29.5N  91.4W  110kt  3    ---   (945mb)   LA3
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana a a 110 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 950 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 945 mb - 
for a 110 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1879/05:  Storm was originally #6 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track unaltered from 
Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) 
utilized for inland winds over the SE United States.  The best track 
provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone 
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below 
tropical storm intensity).

1879/05 - 2003 REVISION:

06535 10/03/1879 M= 5  5 SNBR= 193 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
06535 10/03/1879 M= 5  5 SNBR= 196 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

06540 10/03*145 776  40    0*154 786  40    0*162 795  40    0*172 804  40    0
06545 10/04*182 814  40    0*191 821  40    0*200 830  40    0*207 839  40    0
06550 10/05*216 846  40    0*224 854  40    0*231 859  40    0*237 864  40    0
06555 10/06*244 869  50    0*250 874  50    0*258 879  50    0*267 884  50    0
06560 10/07*280 889  50    0*293 893  50    0*312 900  40    0*330 905  40    0
06560 10/07*280 889  50    0*293 893  50    0*312 900  40    0*330 905  30    0
                                                                        **

06565 TS  

Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.

********************************************************************************


1879/06:  Storm was originally #7 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track unaltered from 
Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) 
utilized for inland winds over the SE United States.  The best track 
provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone 
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below 
tropical storm intensity).

1879/06 - 2003 REVISION:

06570 10/09/1879 M= 8  6 SNBR= 194 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
06570 10/09/1879 M= 8  6 SNBR= 197 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

06575 10/09*142 560  40    0*142 572  40    0*143 585  40    0*144 599  40    0
06580 10/10*146 614  40    0*148 632  40    0*150 650  40    0*152 664  40    0
06585 10/11*154 681  40    0*157 700  40    0*160 720  50    0*162 736  50    0
06590 10/12*167 751  50    0*175 768  50    0*181 783  50    0*187 793  50    0
06595 10/13*192 803  50    0*200 811  50    0*204 819  50    0*210 826  50    0
06600 10/14*217 831  50    0*225 835  50    0*232 839  50    0*241 841  50    0
06605 10/15*249 843  50    0*259 845  50    0*268 848  50    0*277 851  50    0
06610 10/16*287 856  50    0*299 864  50    0*313 871  40    0*330 880  40    0
06610 10/16*287 856  50    0*299 864  50    0*313 871  40    0*330 880  30    0
                                                                        **

06615 TS  

Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.

********************************************************************************


1879/07:  Storm was originally #8 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These track changes are found
to be reasonable.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized 
for inland winds over Florida.  Storm is documented to have reached 
hurricane status based upon several ship reports. 

********************************************************************************

1879/08:  Storm was originally #9 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These track changes are found
to be reasonable.  Central pressure of 968 mb suggests winds of 84 kt from 
northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen, in part because the 
hurricane had transitioned to an extratropical storm about six hours 
previously.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based 
upon the central pressure measurement and several ship observations.

1879/08 - 2003 REVISION:

06765 11/18/1879 M= 4  8 SNBR= 196 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
06765 11/18/1879 M= 4  8 SNBR= 199 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

06770 11/18*217 735  60    0*225 735  60    0*235 735  60    0*242 735  60    0
06775 11/19*252 735  70    0*263 735  70    0*280 735  80    0*306 730  80    0
06780 11/20*335 720  90    0*363 700  90    0*390 680  80    0*425 648  80  968
06780 11/20*335 720  90    0*363 700  90    0E390 680  80    0E425 648  80  968
                                             *                *

06785 11/21*458 618  70    0*493 587  60    0*530 555  50    0*550 540  50    0
06785 11/21E458 618  70    0E493 587  60    0E530 555  50    0E550 540  50    0
           *                *                *                *

06790 HR

Despite the description in the original writeup of an extratropical stage
beginning on the 20th, no such stage was indicated in HURDAT.  This is now
corrected for the 20th and 21st.

********************************************************************************

1879 - Additional Notes:  
1.  The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b) 
and storm number 4 in Neumann et al. (1993) was not included into the 
HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually 
exist as a tropical cyclone.  Following the suggestion by Partagas and 
Diaz, this event was instead determined to be an unusually early, long-
lasting and intense "norther" (cold front).  Additional investigation for 
this system found that the September 1879 issue of _Monthly Weather 
Review_ showed no track drawn for this storm, nor any record of 
significant rainfall in any of the Florida stations.  A researcher at the 
time - Loomis (1881) - also did not identify this system as being a 
tropical storm.  The first report that did put together a track for this 
storm was Garriott (1900);  however, no supporting documentation was 
provided by Garriott for how the track was determined.  All subsequent 
track books and climatologies have reproduced Garriott's track as is.  
Thus, there appears to be no corroborating evidence in support of the 
track apparently first provided by Garriott (1900), this system is 
removed as a tropical storm from the database.

********************************************************************************

1880/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas.  The best track 
provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone 
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below 
tropical storm intensity).

1880/01 - 2003 REVISION:

06690 06/21/1880 M= 5  1 SNBR= 197 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
06690 06/21/1880 M= 5  1 SNBR= 200 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

06695 06/21*267 865  40    0*268 873  40    0*270 880  40    0*272 886  40    0
06700 06/22*275 894  40    0*278 901  40    0*280 910  40    0*280 916  40    0
06705 06/23*280 923  40    0*280 928  40    0*281 934  40    0*282 940  40    0
06710 06/24*283 945  40    0*284 950  40    0*286 955  40    0*288 959  40    0
06715 06/25*291 963  40    0*295 966  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
06715 06/25*291 963  30    0*295 966  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
                     **               **

06720 TS

Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.

********************************************************************************

1880/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  
Estimate from Ho (1989) of 931 mb at landfall in Mexico just south of the 
United States-Mexico border corresponds to 128 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 130 kt chosen for best track.  This, along
with the extreme destruction in Matamoros, Mexico and Port Isabell and
Brazos, Texas, is the basis for determining that this storm reached major 
hurricane intensity.  When the hurricane crossed into the United States at 
about 06 UTC on the 13th of August, it is estimated that the central 
pressure had filled to 943 mb which corresponds to 117 kt - 110 kt chosen 
for best track because hurricane was inland by this point.  Inland decay 
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
Mexico and Texas.  The best track provided appears to describe the full 
life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical 
storm to its peak as a major hurricane until its dissipation below 
tropical storm intensity).

1880/02 - 2003 REVISION:

06725 08/04/1880 M=11  2 SNBR= 198 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
06725 08/04/1880 M=11  2 SNBR= 201 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***

06730 08/04*160 598  40    0*159 618  40    0*160 640  40    0*161 655  40    0
06735 08/05*162 670  50    0*162 684  50    0*165 698  50    0*166 711  50    0
06740 08/06*167 725  60    0*167 738  60    0*170 751  70    0*171 763  70    0
06745 08/07*172 775  80    0*175 786  80    0*177 800  90    0*181 811  90    0
06750 08/08*185 821  90    0*189 831  90    0*192 840  90    0*196 846  90    0
06755 08/09*200 853  90    0*202 860  90    0*207 866  90    0*210 874  70    0
06755 08/09*200 853  90    0*204 860  90    0*207 867  90    0*210 874  70    0
                             ***                  ***

06760 08/10*212 881  60    0*216 889  50    0*220 896  60    0*222 904  60    0
06760 08/10*213 881  60    0*216 889  50    0*220 896  60    0*223 904  60    0
            ***                                                ***

06765 08/11*226 911  70    0*230 920  70    0*234 926  80    0*237 933  80    0
06765 08/11*226 911  70    0*230 919  70    0*234 926  80    0*237 933  80    0
                                 ***

06770 08/12*240 938  90    0*242 944 100    0*247 950 110    0*252 960 120    0
06770 08/12*240 938  90    0*243 944 100    0*247 950 110    0*252 960 120    0
                             ***

06775 08/13*257 969 130  931*261 976 110  943*265 985  70    0*271 995  60    0
06780 08/14*2781002  50    0*2861010  40    0*2971015  40    0*3101010  40    0
06780 08/14*2781002  50    0*2861010  40    0*2971015  30    0*3101010  30    0
                                                       **               **

06785 HRATX3

Track altered slightly on the 9th to the 12th to provide a more realistic
smooth track.  Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before 
dissipation over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the 
best track.

********************************************************************************

1880/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  
987 mb central pressure corresponds to 68 kt from the southern 
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.  980 mb central 
pressure corresponds to 78 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship -
80 kt chosen for best track.  992 mb central pressure corresponds
to 61 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt
chosen for best track.  The observations of winds and central pressures
of 987 mb and 980 mb from Jamaica and Cuba are the basis for determination
that this storm reached hurricane intensity.  The best track provided 
appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its 
formation as a tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its 
dissipation below tropical storm intensity).

********************************************************************************

1880/04:  Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995) is to remove 
the track from September 2nd as the storm is determined to have decayed 
below tropical storm strength by then.  The track is otherwise unchanged 
from that of Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small 
alterations to the track of Neumann et al. (1993).  972 mb central
pressure corresponds to 84 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track.  A pressure reading 
of 999 mb not in the storm's center (at 18 UTC on the 25th of August) 
suggests winds of at least 50 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 60 kt used in best track.  A pressure reading of
993 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 31st of
August) suggests winds of at least 58 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds 
over the S.E. United States.  Storm is determined to be a hurricane
based upon several ship reports and pressure measurements both in the
Atlantic and again in the Gulf of Mexico.

1880/04 - 2003 REVISION:

06830 08/24/1880 M= 9  4 SNBR= 200 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
06830 08/24/1880 M= 9  4 SNBR= 203 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***

06835 08/24*247 575  50    0*249 586  50    0*250 597  50    0*252 607  50    0
06840 08/25*255 618  60    0*257 628  60    0*260 638  60    0*262 650  60    0
06845 08/26*264 661  70    0*266 673  70    0*267 685  80    0*269 696  80    0
06850 08/27*271 709  90    0*272 721  90    0*273 734  90    0*274 744  90    0
06855 08/28*275 754  90    0*277 765  90    0*278 775  90    0*279 785  90    0
06860 08/29*280 794  90  972*281 801  90    0*282 806  90    0*283 811  70    0
06865 08/30*284 816  60    0*285 821  60    0*287 826  60    0*290 833  70    0
06870 08/31*294 841  70    0*298 850  70    0*302 860  60    0*307 870  60    0
06875 09/01*314 878  50    0*322 884  40    0*330 890  40    0*335 891  40    0
06875 09/01*314 878  50    0*322 884  40    0*330 890  30    0*335 891  30    0
                                                       **               **

06880 HRCFL2DFL1AFL1  

Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.

1880/04 - 2011 REVISION:

07015 08/24/1880 M= 9  4 SNBR= 204 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
07020 08/24*247 575  50    0*249 586  50    0*250 597  50    0*252 607  50    0*
07025 08/25*255 618  60    0*257 628  60    0*260 638  60    0*262 650  60    0*
07030 08/26*264 661  70    0*266 673  70    0*267 685  80    0*269 696  80    0*
07035 08/27*271 709  90    0*272 721  90    0*273 734  90    0*274 744  90    0*
07040 08/28*275 754  90    0*277 765  90    0*278 775  90    0*279 785  90    0*
07045 08/29*280 794  90  972*281 801  90    0*282 806  90    0*283 811  70    0*
07050 08/30*284 816  60    0*285 821  60    0*287 826  60    0*290 833  70    0*
07055 08/31*294 841  70    0*298 850  70    0*302 860  60    0*307 870  60    0*
07060 09/01*314 878  50    0*322 884  40    0*330 890  30    0*335 891  30    0*
07065 HRCFL2DFL1AFL1                                                            

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-8/29/1880    1200Z 28.2N  80.6W   90kt  2    ---    972mb    CFL2,DFL1
4-8/31/1880    0400Z 29.7N  84.8W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AFL1
4-8/31/1880    0400Z 29.7N  84.8W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AFL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in the Florida panhandle as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested 
a central pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1880/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.  A pressure reading of 987 mb 
not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on the 30th of August) suggests 
winds of at least 67 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure 
relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 977 mb central pressure 
corresponds to 79 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure 
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track.  Storm is determined to have 
reached hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports and pressure 
measurements.

********************************************************************************


1880/06:  No major changes from this newly documented storm from 
Partagas and Diaz (1995).  987 mb central pressure corresponds to 
67 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen 
for best track.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) 
utilized for inland winds over Florida.  Storm determined to have
reached hurricane intensity based upon central pressure reading,
destruction at Cape Henry, Virginia and reports from the ship 
"T.H.A. Pitts".

1880/06 - 2003 REVISION:

06960 09/06/1880 M= 6  6 SNBR= 203 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
06965 09/06*239 886  40    0*242 884  40    0*246 880  40    0*249 876  40    0
06970 09/07*252 873  40    0*256 870  40    0*260 866  40    0*266 863  40    0
06975 09/08*271 860  50    0*277 856  50    0*287 846  50    0*301 831  50    0
06975 09/08*271 860  50    0*277 856  50    0*287 846  50    0*301 831  40    0
                                                                        **

06980 09/09*317 804  60    0*335 781  70  987*353 765  70    0*370 743  70    0
06985 09/10*389 720  70    0*408 689  70    0*423 660  70    0*432 639  70    0
06990 09/11E440 617  60    0E447 591  60    0E453 567  60    0E460 542  60    0
06995 HR NC1      

No weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over Florida.  Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over Florida.  Winds reduced accordingly on the 8th.

********************************************************************************

1880/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 6.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Pressure 
reading of 982 mb (at 12 UTC on the 8th of September) not in the 
hurricane's center suggests winds of at least 73 kt from the subtropical 
latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track.  Storm 
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon peripheral 
pressure reading and wind reports from several ships.

********************************************************************************


1880/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 7.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  928 mb central 
pressure (twice) corresponds to 118 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 120 kt chosen for best track. The storm is 
determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon these two 
central pressure measurements.

********************************************************************************

1880/09:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 8.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Inland decay 
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida.  
The storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity both in the 
Gulf of Mexico and again over the Atlantic based upon several ship 
observations.

1880/09 - 2011 REVISION:

07245 10/05/1880 M= 6  9 SNBR= 209 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
07250 10/05*182 851  40    0*186 856  40    0*190 860  40    0*196 866  40    0*
07255 10/06*205 871  50    0*214 873  50    0*222 873  50    0*227 871  50    0*
07260 10/07*234 868  60    0*241 864  60    0*247 860  60    0*254 856  60    0*
07265 10/08*263 853  70    0*269 850  70    0*277 843  70    0*287 830  70    0*
07270 10/09*301 810  60    0*313 789  70    0*320 760  70    0*324 739  70    0*
07275 10/10*325 723  70    0*325 701  70    0*325 685  70    0*325 655  70    0*
07280 HRAFL1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
6-9/9/1880     1000Z 34.7N  77.1W   70kt  1    ---    987mb    NC1
9-10/8/1880    1900Z 28.9N  82.7W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AFL1
9-10/8/1880    1900Z 28.9N  82.7W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AFL1
                                                      ***

The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

1880/10:  No major changes from this newly documented hurricane from
Partagas and Diaz (1995).  970 mb central pressure corresponds to
85 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship -
80 kt chosen due to cooler SSTs in October.  979 mb central pressure 
corresponds to 76 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure 
relationship - 70 kt chosen partially due to cooler SSTs in October.  
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon these 
central pressure readings and several ship reports.

********************************************************************************

1880/11:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995), except to
add 12 and 18 UTC positions for the 20th of October to accommodate
beginning of track portrayed.  Track otherwise unaltered from Neumann 
et al. (1993), originally storm number 9.  991 mb central pressure 
corresponds to 61 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 
60 kt chosen.  The best track provided appears to describe the full 
life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical 
storm until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).


1880/11 - 2006 REVISION:

07330 10/20/1880 M= 5 11 SNBR= 211 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0                    L
07330 10/20/1880 M= 5 11 SNBR= 211 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0                    L
                                                    *

07335 10/20*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*271 753  40    0*282 746  40    0*
07340 10/21*293 745  40    0*302 741  40    0*310 740  40    0*317 738  40    0*
07345 10/22*324 736  50    0*332 733  50    0*340 730  50    0*353 726  50    0*
07350 10/23*375 718  60    0E402 705  60    0E435 690  60  991E460 680  50    0*
07355 10/24E478 673  50    0E490 663  50    0E500 650  50    0E508 635  50    0*
07360 TS                                                                        

Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia 
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be not be indicated as
a U.S. landfall ("XING=1") as it already had become extratropical before
striking New England based upon the existing track and intensity in
HURDAT.

********************************************************************************

1881/01:  Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996) is to 
remove the 12 and 18 UTC from the best track on the 4th of August
as the storm was determined to have decayed below tropical storm
force by those times.  Track otherwise unaltered from Neumann et al. 
(1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for 
inland winds over the S.E. United States.  The best track provided appears 
to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its 
formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below tropical storm 
intensity).

07180 08/01/1881 M= 4  1 SNBR= 208 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
07180 08/01/1881 M= 4  1 SNBR= 211 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

07185 08/01*230 855  40    0*235 858  40    0*240 860  40    0*246 863  40    0
07190 08/02*252 866  40    0*261 868  40    0*270 870  40    0*277 874  40    0
07195 08/03*285 878  50    0*293 881  50    0*301 883  50    0*309 884  40    0
07200 08/04*315 886  40    0*320 888  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
07200 08/04*315 886  30    0*320 888  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
                     **               **

07205 TS

Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.

********************************************************************************

1881/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who kept
the track as shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of 
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas.  

07315 08/11/1881 M= 4  2 SNBR= 209 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
07315 08/11/1881 M= 4  2 SNBR= 212 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

07320 08/11*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*256 887  40    0*256 896  40    0
07325 08/12*256 905  40    0*257 915  40    0*258 924  40    0*261 934  40    0
07330 08/13*264 943  40    0*268 952  40    0*272 958  40    0*277 966  40    0
07335 08/14*283 972  40    0*289 977  30    0*296 983  30    0*308 990  30    0
07335 08/14*283 972  30    0*289 977  30    0*296 983  30    0*308 990  30    0
                     **

07340 TS

Winds reduced to account for weakening after landfall more realistically.

********************************************************************************


1881/03:  This hurricane was newly documented by Partagas and Diaz (1996)
and no major changes are made to their track.  The storm is determined
to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ship
"Fonthill".

********************************************************************************

1881/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 3.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Storm is 
determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the 
ships "Cohasset" and "Anna".

********************************************************************************


1881/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made 
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 4.  A sea level pressure reading of 985 mb (at 
00 UTC on the 27th of August) not in the storm's center suggests 
sustained winds of at least 70 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure 
relationship - 90 kt chosen for the best track.  Sandrik (1999) utilized 
this peripheral pressure of 985 mb along with an estimate of a RMW of 
15 nmi to get a 970 mb estimate of central pressure at landfall.  970 mb 
suggests 85 kt winds from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 
90 kt chosen for best track.  1002 mb central pressure corresponds to 
45 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 40 kt 
chosen for best track as storm was well inland at this point.  Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
the S.E. United States.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane 
status based upon several ship reports, the 985 mb peripheral pressure 
reading and winds from Tybee Island and Augusta, Georgia.

1881/05 - 2003 REVISION:

07330 08/21/1881 M= 9  5 SNBR= 212 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
07330 08/21/1881 M= 9  5 SNBR= 215 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***

07335 08/21*176 570  60    0*177 580  60    0*177 590  60    0*177 599  60    0
07340 08/22*180 609  60    0*182 620  60    0*186 630  60    0*189 639  60    0
07345 08/23*192 649  60    0*196 659  60    0*201 670  60    0*207 680  60    0
07350 08/24*216 691  70    0*222 700  70    0*230 708  70    0*237 719  70    0
07355 08/25*244 728  70    0*249 736  70    0*255 746  80    0*260 754  80    0
07360 08/26*267 764  80    0*274 773  80    0*282 781  80    0*286 786  90    0
07365 08/27*293 790  90    0*299 793  90    0*307 796  90    0*313 801  90    0
07370 08/28*316 809  90  970*319 819  70    0*320 830  50    0*320 844  50    0
07375 08/29*325 863  40    0*332 876  40    0*340 890  40 1002*347 904  40    0
07375 08/29*325 863  40    0*332 876  40    0*340 890  40 1002*347 904  30    0
                                                                        **

07380 HR GA2 SC1

Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.

********************************************************************************

1881/06:  Only major change from Partagas and Diaz is to adjust the
track near U.S. landfall to account for analyses by Ho (1989). 
Track is otherwise unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally 
storm number 5.  Estimated central pressure at landfall of 975 mb 
corresponds to 81 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure 
relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track due to small (15 n mi) 
radius of maximum winds.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria 
(1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States.  
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon 
several ship reports and estimated central pressure reading of 975 mb.

********************************************************************************

1881/07:  No major changes from this newly documented storm from
Partagas and Diaz.  

********************************************************************************

1881 - Additional Notes:  
1.  The tropical storm listed as #8 in 1881 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b) 
and storm number 6 in Neumann et al. (1993) was not included into the 
HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually 
exist as a tropical cyclone.  Partagas and Diaz suggested that the storm 
was likely an extratropical storm for the duration of its lifetime.

********************************************************************************

1882/01:  No major changes from this newly documented hurricane
by Partagas and Diaz (1996).  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon reports from the ships "Case" and "Ida".

********************************************************************************

1882/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 1.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  981 mb central 
pressure suggests winds of 76 kt from the southern wind-pressure 
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track.  961 mb central pressure 
corresponds to 94 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure 
relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track.  949 mb central pressure 
corresponds to 103 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 
100 kt chosen for best track.  1000 mb central pressure suggests 49 kt 
from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track.  
A pressure reading of 980 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on 
the 4th of September) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from the southern 
wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for the best track.  A pressure 
reading of 986 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 5th) 
suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the southern wind-pressure 
relationship - 70 kt chosen for the best track.  Inland decay model of 
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United 
States.  Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity 
based upon central pressure reading of 949 mb from the ship "Cato" while 
over the Gulf of Mexico.

1882/02 - 2003 REVISION:

07485 09/02/1882 M=12  2 SNBR= 216 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
07485 09/02/1882 M=12  2 SNBR= 219 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***

07490 09/02*195 675  50    0*197 685  50    0*202 693  50    0*207 701  50    0
07495 09/03*212 709  60    0*217 718  60    0*220 725  70    0*222 734  70    0
07500 09/04*225 743  80    0*225 751  80    0*225 761  80    0*224 770  80    0
07500 09/04*225 743  80    0*225 751  80    0*225 761  90    0*224 770  90    0
                                                       **               **

07505 09/05*224 778  80    0*222 786  80    0*222 795  80    0*222 809  70    0
07505 09/05*224 778  90    0*224 786  80    0*224 795  80    0*224 809  70    0
                     **      ***              ***              ***

07510 09/06*222 820  70    0*222 829  70    0*222 838  70    0*222 846  70    0
07510 09/06*224 820  70    0*224 829  70    0*224 838  70    0*224 846  70    0
            ***              ***              ***              ***

07515 09/07*225 858  80  981*231 866  80    0*237 873  80    0*242 876  80    0
07515 09/07*226 858  80  981*231 866  80    0*237 873  80    0*242 876  80    0
            ***

07520 09/08*247 880  90    0*254 883  90    0*260 886  90    0*264 886  90    0
07520 09/08*247 880  90    0*254 883  90    0*260 886  90    0*264 887  90    0
                                                                   ***

07525 09/09*268 888  90    0*273 886  90    0*277 884  90    0*288 880  90  961
07525 09/09*268 888  90    0*272 887  90    0*277 884  90    0*288 880  90  961
                             *** ***

07530 09/10*300 871 100  949*311 861  80    0*319 851  60    0*330 841  40    0
07535 09/11*337 833  40    0*345 821  40    0*353 808  40    0*367 783  40    0
07540 09/12*384 749  50    0*400 715  60    0*417 681  50 1000*437 645  50    0
07545 09/13E452 610  40    0E465 575  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
07550 HRAFL3 AL1

Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has analyzed this hurricane as a 
Category 2 landfall in Cuba, instead of a Category 1 assigned in HURDAT.
Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 4th and 5th.  Perez' track was slightly 
farther north on the 5th and 6th, so the latitudes on those dates have also 
been changed accordingly.  Track altered slightly on the 8th and 9th to
provide a more realistic translational velocity.


1882/02 - 2006 REVISION:

07670 09/02/1882 M=12  2 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
07675 09/02*195 675  50    0*197 685  50    0*202 693  50    0*207 701  50    0*
07680 09/03*212 709  60    0*217 718  60    0*220 725  70    0*222 734  70    0*
07685 09/04*225 743  80    0*225 751  80    0*225 761  90    0*224 770  90    0*
07690 09/05*224 778  90    0*224 786  80    0*224 795  80    0*224 809  70    0*
07695 09/06*224 820  70    0*224 829  70    0*224 838  70    0*224 846  70    0*
07700 09/07*226 858  80  981*231 866  80    0*237 873  80    0*242 876  80    0*
07705 09/08*247 880  90    0*254 883  90    0*260 886  90    0*264 887  90    0*
07710 09/09*268 888  90    0*272 887  90    0*277 884  90    0*288 880  90  961*
07715 09/10*300 871 100  949*311 861  80    0*319 851  60    0*330 841  40    0*
07720 09/11*337 833  40    0*345 821  40    0*353 808  40    0*367 783  40    0*
07725 09/12*384 749  50    0*400 715  60    0*417 681  50 1000*437 645  50    0*
07730 09/13E452 610  40    0E465 575  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
07735 HRAFL3 AL1                                                                
07735 HRAFL3IAL1                                                                
            ****

Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Alabama
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Alabama's
Gulf coast.

1882/02 - 2011 REVISION:

07670 09/02/1882 M=12  2 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
07675 09/02*195 675  50    0*197 685  50    0*202 693  50    0*207 701  50    0*
07680 09/03*212 709  60    0*217 718  60    0*220 725  70    0*222 734  70    0*
07685 09/04*225 743  80    0*225 751  80    0*225 761  90    0*224 770  90    0*
07690 09/05*224 778  90    0*224 786  80    0*224 795  80    0*224 809  70    0*
07695 09/06*224 820  70    0*224 829  70    0*224 838  70    0*224 846  70    0*
07700 09/07*226 858  80  981*231 866  80    0*237 873  80    0*242 876  80    0*
07705 09/08*247 880  90    0*254 883  90    0*260 886  90    0*264 887  90    0*
07710 09/09*268 888  90    0*272 887  90    0*277 884  90    0*288 880  90  961*
07710 09/09*268 888  90    0*272 887  90    0*277 884  90    0*288 880 100  961*
                                                                       ***

07715 09/10*300 871 100  949*311 861  80    0*319 851  60    0*330 841  40    0*
07715 09/10*300 871 110  949*311 861  80    0*319 851  60    0*330 841  40    0*
                    ***

07720 09/11*337 833  40    0*345 821  40    0*353 808  40    0*367 783  40    0*
07725 09/12*384 749  50    0*400 715  60    0*417 681  50 1000*437 645  50    0*
07730 09/13E452 610  40    0E465 575  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
07735 HRAFL3IAL1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
2-9/10/1882    0200Z 30.4N  86.8W  100kt  3    ---    949mb    AFL3,IAL1
2-9/10/1882    0200Z 30.4N  86.8W  110kt  3    ---    949mb    AFL3,IAL1
                                   ***

The originally analysis of this hurricane mistakenly utilized the subtropical
pressure-wind relationship instead of the Gulf of Mexico equations.  
The 961 mb central pressure at 20Z on the 9th suggests 94 kt from the Brown
et al. (2006) north of 25N pressure-wind relationship and 98 kt for
the same for the subset of intensifying hurricanes.  Six hours later
at 02Z on the 10th, the hurricane made landfall with a 949 mb central
pressure.  949 mb suggests winds of 106 kt from the Brown et al. (2006)
north of 25N pressure-wind relationship and 111 kt from the same but
for the subset of intensifying hurricanes.  No size estimate of the
hurricane at landfall was available and the translational velocity is
a near average 14 kt at landfall.  Winds are increased from
90 kt to 100 kt at 18Z on the 9th and 100 kt to 110 kt at 00Z on the 10th
as well as at landfall at 02Z.  A run of the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
inland decay model did not suggest that any changes in winds after
landfall were needed. 

********************************************************************************

1882/03 - 2003 ADDITION:

07566 09/14/1882 M= 3  3 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
07567 09/14*280 890  90    0*282 900  90    0*285 910  90    0*289 920  90    0
07568 09/15*294 930  90    0*299 938  80    0*304 945  60    0*309 950  40    0
07569 09/16*315 953  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
07570 HR LA2CTX1

Roth (1997a,b) documents a newly described system that made landfall
along the U.S. coastline near the Texas-Louisiana border:

"A strong tropical storm hit the mouth of the Sabine River. A "terrific wind 
 and rain storm" caused damage to homes in Sabine Pass, Tx. The Lake Charles 
 Echo, La. reported it as a "hurricane" that destroyed a house and injured 
 its occupant.  Streets in town were covered by 3 feet of water. Fences were 
 blown over a mile from their previous location.  That night [the 14th], a 
 "Hard wind and rain" visited Lake Charles, described as a lively gale". Port 
 Eads, La. had winds of 70 m.p.h. and a pressure of 29.38". Abbeville, La. 
 reported no damage with the storm."

From this description a rough track of the storm was created that goes
from southeast to northwest, making landfall just east of Sabine Pass.
Storm surge modeling (B. Jarvinen, personal communication) suggests that
3' of standing water in the streets of Lake Charles requires a Category 2
at landfall.  Thus this system is estimated as 90 kt at landfall.  The 
inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds 
over Texas and Louisiana. 

1882/03 - 2011 REVISION:

07566 09/14/1882 M= 3  3 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
07566 09/14/1882 M= 3  3 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                                                          *

07567 09/14*280 890  90    0*282 900  90    0*285 910  90    0*289 920  90    0
07567 09/14*265 915  30    0*270 917  35    0*277 920  40    0*285 923  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **
      
07568 09/15*294 930  90    0*299 938  80    0*304 945  60    0*309 950  40    0
07568 09/15*294 930  50    0*299 938  50    0*304 945  40    0*309 950  35    0
                     **               **               **               **

07569 09/16*315 953  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
07570 HR LA2CTX1
07570 TS 
      ** *******

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
3-9/15/1882    0500Z 29.8N  93.7W   90     2   ---    (969)    LA2,CTX1
3-9/15/1882    0500Z 29.8N  93.7W   50    TS   ---    -----    None
                                    **    **           ***     ********                                      

The track and intensity for this hurricane have major revisions.  This reanalysis - 
based upon newspaper articles and new station observations – was a combined effort 
by Mike Chenoweth, Cary Mock, David Roth, Roger Erickson, and Sandy Delgado.

Some of the information used in the original analysis reported in the Roth (1997a,b) 
Louisiana and Texas hurricane history was confused with impacts from the hurricane 
(storm #2) that struck Florida and made a close bypass to the mouth of the Mississippi 
River a week earlier.  In particular, associating the report of 29.38” pressure and 
70 mph winds from Port Eads for this system (storm #3) was erroneous.

Below are relevant newspaper articles from the Lake Charles Echo, a weekly publication:  

“A hard wind and rain visited this section [Lake Charles] Thursday night [14 September 1882]
 – the rain coming down in torrents and the wind blowing a lively gale.  It was a forerunner, 
doubtless, of an equinoctial blow” – Saturday, 16 September 1882

“A Lively Little Blow.  On Thursday night of last week [14 September 1882], Sabine station 
and vicinity was visited by a terrific wind and rain storm.  Considerable damage was done 
to houses, fences, etc.  The greatest calamity resulting from the hurricane, from the meager 
details we have at hand, was the complete destruction of Mr. Lastie Vincent’s residence, 
which is a total wreck.  Mrs. Vincent was quite severely bruised from the falling of some 
of the timbers.  The town of Sabine Pass had three feet of water in her streets.  Fencing 
at several places was blown a distance of a mile and more.  Altogether it was as severe a 
blow as the people of that section have witnessed in a long time, and we trust no further 
damage was done than that reported.” – Saturday, 23 September 1882

Examination of the Galveston Daily News, Galveston Weekly News, and the New Orleans Picayune 
from September 13-24 had no write-ups on this system at all indicating minimal to no impacts 
for the upper Texas coast and eastern Texas. 

Below are the relevant observations available (Washington time):

Port Eads
       --Sea Level Pressure-- -----Winds (kt)------ ---Other---
Date   7a PPP  3p PPP 11p PPP 7aDDFF 3pDDFF 11pDDFF
7 Sep    1014   1013   1010     E11    E16     E13  .01" rain
8 Sep    1010   1009   1007     E16   SE19    NE25  .83" rain
9 Sep    1000    996   1006    NE46   NE56     N17  [peak NE78] 5.07" rain
10 Sep   1009   1011   1013    NW10    N10    NW10
........
14 Sep   1021   1019   1020     E14    E14     E12
15 Sep   1019   1019   1009     E07    E08    SE04  .15" rain

Galveston
14 Sep   1016   1019   1018     E16    E21     E21  Cloudy - Rain - Thrtg 
15 Sep   1014   1014   1016    NW17    S04     S09  Cloudy - Fair - Clear
Peak wind night of 14-15th is E30 sometime between 11pm and 7am and a peak wind of NW19 
between 7am and 3pm 15 September. 

Shreveport
14 Sep   1021   1020   1019    Calm    N05    Calm
15 Sep   1020   1015   1018    NE04    E13     S03  Light rain - cloudy –
 		   					     Cloudy 0.15"
16 Sep   1019   1018   1017     S01    S04    Calm  Cloudy - Thrtg – Clear

Mobile
14 Sep   1020   ----   ----     N05    E05    NE05
15 Sep   1021   ----   ----     N05   SE05    SW05

New Orleans
14 Sep   1019   ----   ----     N03   ----    ----
15 Sep   1017   ----   ----     E06   ----    ----
16 Sep   1018   ----   ----     N03   ----    ----

Unfortunately, there were no relevant ship observations in the Gulf of Mexico 
during this period available in the COAD database.  Also obtained were the U.S. 
Signal Corp synoptic weather maps for the 13th to the 16th of September and the 
“Precipitation Chart for September, 1882”. 

Examination of the available data clearly shows the storm #2 that impacted Port 
Eads, Louisiana on the 9th and that there was only minimal evidence of a tropical 
cyclone near Sabine Pass on the 14th and 15th.  The Weather Bureau in the Monthly 
Weather Review has a detailed description of Storm #2 earlier in the month that 
affected the northern Gulf region and an area of low pressure at the beginning of 
the month that impacted eastern Texas, but it has no account of a hurricane making 
landfall near the Texas and Louisiana border, or anywhere around the area in the 
time in question. 

It is worth comparing this system with Storm #1 in 1886 as this also had a landfall 
with estimated intensity of 90 kt in the vicinity of Sabine Pass.  Press reports 
were obtained for this case as well.  If the 1882 storm had a 90 kt intensity and 
was felt at Sabine Pass then we should expect to see comparable levels of press 
accounts.

For the 1886 storm, the Picayune carries reports from Galveston, Lake Charles and 
Orange and the Galveston Daily News has reports from Galveston, Orange and Sabine 
Pass. There are at least 10 separate very extensive items from these areas for this 
hurricane. The Picayune always provided reports from Galveston on all subject matter.  
The impacts described are quite consistent with a Category 2 hurricane making landfall 
near Sabine Pass.

As described above, the only press reports on this 1882 system were the very short 
articles from the Lake Charles Echo on the impacts in Sabine Pass and in Lake Charles. 
Again, the Galveston and New Orleans newspapers carried no press reports about the 1882 
system.

The previous motivation for indicating that this system was a Category 2 hurricane 
was both the Port Eads observations and the flooding within Sabine Pass.  It is now 
understood that the Port Eads observations were instead wrongly dated and were 
instead reflective of conditions that actually occurred from storm #2.  The flooding 
was interpreted by the Best Track Change Committee in 2003 to be due to storm surge 
flooding.  However, given both the lack of other hurricane impacts along the coast as 
reported by the press, it is likely that this was due to fresh-water rainfall flooding.  

Thus the observations from Galveston and the other available stations along with the 
modest impacts described in the newspaper articles for Lake Charles and Sabine Pass 
do suggest that a small tropical storm came ashore near the Louisiana/Texas border.  
But they are quite inconsistent with a hurricane strike.  With these additional data, 
the track is adjusted over the Gulf of Mexico toward the southwest on the 14th 
beginning with as a tropical depression, intensifying to a 50 kt tropical storm by 
landfall, but making landfall at the same location and time as originally indicated.  
Weaker winds are also indicated during the dissipation phase.  

Alternatively, some of the researchers contributing information for this system
have concluded that this was not a tropical storm either over the Gulf of 
Mexico or in Louisiana/Texas and instead was a local wind/rain event (likely
a squall line) for Sabine Pass.

********************************************************************************

1882 Storm 3 – Revised 2012

07760 09/14/1882 M= 3  3 SNBR= 221 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0                     
07765 09/14*265 915  30    0*270 917  35    0*277 920  40    0*285 923  45    0*
07765 09/14*265 915  30    0*270 917  40    0*277 920  40    0*285 923  50    0*
                                      **                                **

07770 09/15*294 930  50    0*299 938  50    0*304 945  40    0*309 950  35    0*
07770 09/15*294 930  50    0*299 938  50    0*304 945  40    0*309 950  40    0*
                                                                        **

07775 09/16*315 953  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
07780 TS

The revisions to this cyclone made in 2011 were with overly precise maximum wind 
values to the nearest 5 kt.  These were not used until 1886 and thus the maximum 
winds are rounded to the nearest 10 kt to be consistent with the database.

********************************************************************************


1882/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), (was originally 
storm #3 in the Partagas and Diaz report).  Track unaltered from Neumann 
et al. (1993), their storm number 2.  1005 mb central pressure corresponds 
to 40 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship, which is utilized 
as the best track intensity value.  The best track provided appears to 
describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation 
as a tropical storm until its dissipation below tropical storm intensity).

1882/04 - 2003 REVISION:

07570 09/21/1882 M= 4  3 SNBR= 218 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
07570 09/21/1882 M= 4  4 SNBR= 218 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                       *

07575 09/21*285 768  40    0*292 771  40    0*300 775  40    0*308 776  40    0
07580 09/22*315 776  40    0*322 776  40    0*330 774  50    0*340 771  50    0
07580 09/22*315 776  40    0*322 776  40    0*330 775  50    0*340 773  50    0
                                                  ***              ***

07585 09/23*350 770  40    0*360 766  40 1005*370 761  40    0*382 755  40    0
07590 09/24*394 745  40    0*410 725  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
07595 TS    

Track altered slightly on the 22nd to provide a more realistic smooth track.  

********************************************************************************

1882/05:  No major changes from this newly documented hurricane from
Partagas and Diaz (1996), (was originally storm #4 in the Partagas
and Diaz report).  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon reports from the ships "R.A. Allen" and "Sedmi
Dubrovacki".

********************************************************************************

1882/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), (was originally 
storm #5 in the Partagas and Diaz report).  Track unaltered from Neumann 
et al. (1993), their storm number 3.  975 mb central pressure corresponds 
to 84 kt in the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for 
best track.  981 mb central pressure corresponds to 76 kt of sustained 
winds from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt utilized in 
best track.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for 
inland winds over Florida and Georgia.  Storm is determined to have been 
of hurricane intensity while in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico based 
upon these central pressure readings, ship reports and a 9 foot storm 
tide experienced at the mouth of the Colona River, Cuba.  Storm regained 
hurricane intensity while over the Atlantic based upon several ship 
reports.

07620 10/05/1882 M=11  5 SNBR= 219 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
07620 10/05/1882 M=11  6 SNBR= 223 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                       *       ***

07625 10/05*142 816  40    0*146 819  40    0*150 820  40    0*154 821  40    0
07630 10/06*158 821  50    0*162 823  50    0*166 824  50    0*170 825  50    0
07635 10/07*172 826  60    0*177 828  60    0*180 829  70    0*184 830  70    0
07640 10/08*187 831  80    0*191 831  80    0*195 831  90    0*202 835  90    0
07640 10/08*187 831  80    0*191 832  90    0*195 833 100    0*202 835 110    0
                                 ***  **          *** ***              ***

07645 10/09*212 836  90  975*222 839  80  981*235 840  80    0*244 840  80    0
07645 10/09*212 837 120    0*222 839 100    0*235 840  90    0*244 841  80    0
                *** ***  ***         ***  ***          **          ***

07650 10/10*254 841  70    0*265 841  70    0*275 840  70    0*283 838  70    0
07655 10/11*291 836  70    0*298 831  60    0*305 826  50    0*312 815  50    0
07660 10/12*320 804  60    0*330 790  60    0*338 775  70    0*342 760  70    0
07665 10/13*347 748  70    0*350 733  70    0*355 720  70    0*358 711  70    0
07670 10/14*360 704  70    0*362 696  70    0*365 690  70    0*367 683  70    0
07675 10/15*370 676  60    0*372 670  60    0*375 661  60    0*378 651  60    0
07680 HRAFL1

Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has analyzed this hurricane as a 
Category 4 landfall in Cuba, instead of a Category 2 assigned in HURDAT.
The pressure values of 975 mb and 981 mb on 00 and 06Z on the 9th are
found to be peripheral pressures, instead of central pressures based upon
additional information provided by Perez (2000).  Winds are adjusted 
accordingly on the 4th and 5th.

********************************************************************************


1883/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These track
changes are found to be reasonable.  Pressure reading of 975 mb not in 
hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 26th of August) suggests winds of at 
least 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for 
best track.  The best track provided appears to describe the full life 
cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to 
its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).  
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon the 
peripheral pressure and several ship reports.

1883/01 - 2003 REVISION:

07815 08/18/1883 M=11  1 SNBR= 224 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
07820 08/18*192 485  40    0*194 495  40    0*195 510  40    0*197 526  40    0
07825 08/19*202 544  40    0*207 560  40    0*212 575  50    0*217 590  50    0
07830 08/20*222 605  50    0*231 623  50    0*240 640  50    0*247 651  50    0
07835 08/21*258 666  60    0*270 680  60    0*281 690  60    0*287 694  60    0
07835 08/21*258 666  60    0*270 680  60    0*281 690  60    0*290 694  60    0
                                                               ***

07840 08/22*295 696  70    0*306 700  70    0*315 701  70    0*320 703  70    0
07840 08/22*299 697  70    0*307 700  70    0*315 702  70    0*322 703  70    0
            *** ***          ***                  ***          *** 

07845 08/23*328 701  70    0*333 700  70    0*339 696  70    0*343 691  70    0
07845 08/23*328 702  70    0*334 700  70    0*339 696  70    0*343 691  70    0
                ***          ***             

07850 08/24*349 684  70    0*353 678  70    0*358 671  70    0*364 661  70    0
07855 08/25*369 653  80    0*375 641  80    0*384 625  80    0*395 603  80    0
07860 08/26*412 574  80    0*429 541  80    0*443 509  80    0*458 480  80    0
07865 08/27*477 438  70    0*493 400  70    0E510 360  60    0E521 328  60    0
07870 08/28E534 289  60    0E547 247  60    0E557 207  50    0E567 175  50    0
07875 HR

Track altered slightly to provide a more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************

1883/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made 
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  
983 mb central pressure suggests winds of 70 kt from the northern 
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt used in best track.  A pressure reading 
of 948 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 00 UTC on the 29th of
August) suggests winds of at least 98 kt from the northern wind-
pressure relationship - 110 kt utilized in best track.  A 963 mb
central pressure measured during the storm's extratropical stage
suggests winds of 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
80 kt chosen for best track as it had already undergone extratropical
transition.  Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane
intensity based upon the 948 mb peripheral pressure measurement.

********************************************************************************

1883/03:  Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996) is to remove 12 
and 18 UTC on the 13th of September as it is suggested that the hurricane 
had decreased below tropical storm force winds by that time.  Track from 
Partagas and Diaz (1996) otherwise has reasonable small alterations from 
that shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States.
A pressure reading of 955 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on 
the 4th of September) suggests winds of at least 105 kt from the southern 
wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt chosen for best track.  A pressure
reading of 978 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 8th)
suggests winds of at least 80 kt from the southern wind-pressure 
relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track.  A pressure reading of 
982 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on the 10th) suggests
winds of at least 73 kt - 90 kt chosen for best track.  Storm determined
to have reached major hurricane intensity while over the Atlantic
based upon peripheral pressure reading of 955 mb and from extreme
damage in Martinique. 

1883/03 - 2003 REVISION:

07810 09/04/1883 M=10  3 SNBR= 222 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
07810 09/04/1883 M=10  3 SNBR= 226 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***

07815 09/04*140 579 110    0*144 592 110    0*147 603 110    0*150 615 110    0
07820 09/05*154 628 110    0*159 641 110    0*162 655 110    0*167 668 110    0
07825 09/06*174 683 110    0*180 699 110    0*187 715  80    0*197 726  70    0
07830 09/07*209 739  70    0*214 748  70    0*220 755  70    0*225 760  70    0
07830 09/07*207 737  70    0*214 748  70    0*220 755  70    0*225 760  70    0
            *** ***

07835 09/08*231 763  80    0*235 765  80    0*240 766  90    0*247 771  90    0
07835 09/08*230 763  80    0*235 766  80    0*240 769  90    0*247 772  90    0
            ***                  ***              ***              ***

07840 09/09*255 774  90    0*264 778  90    0*273 780  90    0*280 781  90    0
07840 09/09*255 775  90    0*264 778  90    0*273 780  90    0*280 781  90    0
                ***

07845 09/10*287 781  90    0*295 783  90    0*302 784  90    0*312 786  90    0
07845 09/10*287 782  90    0*295 783  90    0*302 784  90    0*312 785  90    0
                ***                                                ***

07850 09/11*322 786  90    0*330 786  90    0*338 785  90    0*344 784  70    0
07855 09/12*350 783  50    0*354 783  50    0*360 781  40    0*370 779  40    0
07855 09/12*350 783  50    0*354 782  50    0*360 781  40    0*370 779  40    0
                                 ***

07860 09/13*380 776  40    0*393 773  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
07860 09/13*380 776  30    0*393 773  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
                     **               **

07865 HR NC2 SC1

Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
Track is adjusted slightly to provide for a more realistic translation
velocity.

********************************************************************************

1883/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made 
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  
A pressure reading of 983 mb (at 18 UTC on the 27th of October) suggests 
winds of at least 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 
70 kt chosen in best track as the storm had already undergone extratropical 
transformation.  Storm did not reach hurricane intensity as a tropical 
cyclone, but did obtain hurricane-force sustained winds on the 27th of 
October as an extratropical storm.

********************************************************************************

1884/01:  No major changes from this newly documented hurricane from
Partagas and Diaz (1996).  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon reports from the ships "Oder" and "Engelbert".

********************************************************************************

1884/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996).  Track unaltered 
from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 1.  Central pressure 
of 957 mb corresponds to winds of 103 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track.  A pressure reading of
983 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 00 UTC on the 15th of 
September) suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the northern 
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.  The best 
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical 
cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to its peak as a major
hurricane until its dissipation below tropical storm intensity).
Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based
upon the central pressure reading of 957 mb.

********************************************************************************


1884/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 2.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  982 mb central 
pressure corresponds with 73 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure 
relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.  982 mb central pressure 
corresponds to 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt 
chosen for best track.  A pressure reading of 982 mb not at the hurricane's 
center (at 18 UTC on the 16th of September) suggests winds of at least 73 kt 
from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for 
best track.  The best track provided appears to describe the full life 
cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm 
to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical
storm).  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based 
upon pressure measurements and several ship reports.

1884/03 - 2003 REVISION:

08035 09/10/1884 M=11  3 SNBR= 226 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
08035 09/10/1884 M=11  3 SNBR= 230 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

08040 09/10*287 791  40    0*297 801  40    0*306 806  40    0*310 809  40    0
08045 09/11*315 811  40    0*319 815  40    0*325 816  40    0*330 813  40    0
08045 09/11*315 811  40    0*319 815  40    0*325 816  30    0*330 813  30    0
                                                       **               **

08050 09/12*332 810  40    0*332 804  40    0*330 799  40    0*322 796  40    0
08050 09/12*332 810  30    0*332 804  30    0*330 799  30    0*322 796  40    0
                     **               **               **             

08055 09/13*314 791  50    0*305 785  50    0*303 773  50    0*305 764  50    0
08060 09/14*307 755  60    0*305 744  60    0*300 740  60    0*296 739  60    0
08060 09/14*307 755  60    0*305 744  60    0*300 740  60    0*296 739  70    0
                                                                        **

08065 09/15*293 739  70  982*288 739  70    0*285 740  70    0*283 744  70    0
08065 09/15*293 739  70  982*288 740  70    0*284 744  70    0*281 749  70    0
                                 ***          *** ***          *** ***

08070 09/16*283 748  80    0*284 751  80    0*285 753  80    0*292 754  80    0
08070 09/16*279 754  70    0*278 760  70  988*278 758  70    0*279 755  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08075 09/17*302 751  80    0*310 746  80    0*320 735  80    0*333 719  80    0
08075 09/17*281 751  80    0*284 746  80    0*288 735  80    0*292 715  80    0
            ***              ***              ***              *** ***

08080 09/18*350 694  70    0*365 669  70    0*380 640  70    0*393 611  70    0
08080 09/18*296 680  80    0*302 653  80  979*314 613  80    0*340 585  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08085 09/19*410 577  70    0*427 537  70  982*440 505  70    0*459 458  70    0
08085 09/19*390 560  70    0*427 535  70  982*445 505  70    0*460 458  70    0
            *** ***              ***          ***              ***

08090 09/20E477 404  60    0E495 345  60    0E510 290  50    0E530 230  50    0
08095 HR    

Additional ship observations for this hurricane were obtained from the 
_American Meteorological Journal_ of 1884 (pages 298-300).  In particular,
the ship "Alpine" reported hurricane-force winds late on the 14th - thus
winds in the best track for that day are increased.  A central pressure
value of 988 mb from the ship "R. M. Walls" (06Z on the 16th) suggests 
winds of 66 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - winds 
reduced down to 70 kt in best track along with a repositioning farther south 
and west on the 15th and 16th.  A central pressure value of 979 mb from the 
ship "Stephen Hart" (06Z on the 18th) suggests winds of 76 kt - winds are
increased to 80 kt and the hurricane is repositioned farther to the south
and to the east on the 17th to the 19th.  Decay stage of this storm to a 
tropical depression while over land on the 11th and 12th inadvertently left 
out from the first revision of the best track.  (A thank you to Sim Aberson 
for pointing out these additional ship observations.)

********************************************************************************

1884/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 3.  These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Pressure 
readings of 982 and 980 mb not in the hurricane's center (on 00 UTC and 
18 UTC on the 14th of October) suggest winds of at least 73 and 75 kt, 
respectively, from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt 
chosen for best track.  Storm is determined to have reached hurricane 
intensity while in the Caribbean based upon reports from the ship 
"Cienfuegos" and from damage in Santiago de Cuba, Cuba.  The storm then 
regained hurricane intensity over the Atlantic based upon the pressure 
measurements and several ship reports.

1884/04 - 2003 REVISION:

08230 10/07/1884 M=11  4 SNBR= 227 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
08230 10/07/1884 M=11  4 SNBR= 231 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

08235 10/07*162 766  40    0*165 766  40    0*169 764  50    0*175 761  50    0
08240 10/08*180 760  60    0*185 758  60    0*191 756  70    0*196 755  70    0
08245 10/09*200 754  70    0*202 754  60    0*207 753  50    0*210 751  50    0
08245 10/09*200 754  70    0*204 753  60    0*207 753  50    0*210 752  50    0
                             *** ***                               ***

08250 10/10*214 751  50    0*217 751  50    0*220 750  50    0*222 750  50    0
08250 10/10*214 751  50    0*217 750  50    0*220 750  50    0*222 750  50    0
                                 ***

08255 10/11*222 750  60    0*225 750  60    0*227 750  70    0*230 750  70    0
08255 10/11*224 750  60    0*225 750  60    0*227 750  70    0*230 750  70    0
            ***

08260 10/12*232 750  70    0*235 750  70    0*237 750  70    0*240 750  70    0
08265 10/13*244 750  80    0*250 750  80    0*255 750  80    0*257 750  80    0
08270 10/14*257 750  90    0*257 750  90    0*257 746  90    0*258 741  90    0
08275 10/15*261 728  80    0*264 720  80    0*268 708  80    0*272 699  80    0
08280 10/16*276 688  70    0*279 678  70    0*282 668  70    0*284 654  70    0
08285 10/17*286 637  60    0*289 618  60    0*291 601  60    0*293 580  60    0
08290 HR

Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion.  It was
suggested by Perez (personal communication, 2003) that instead of a
hard right turn by this storm, that a cyclonic loop may have been
tracked from late on the 12th to the 14th.  Without more definitive
information, the original track in HURDAT is retained.

********************************************************************************


1885/01:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  
990 mb central pressure corresponds to 63 kt from the subtropical 
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.  981 mb central 
pressure corresponds to 72 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship
- 70 kt chosen for best track.  983 mb central pressure corresponds
to 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
chosen for best track.  A pressure reading of 975 mb not in the
hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 10th of August) suggests winds 
of at least 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship 
- 80 kt chosen for best track.  The storm is determined to have reached
hurricane intensity from these pressure reports and several other ship
reports.

********************************************************************************

1885/02:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  These track 
changes are found to be reasonable.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United States.  
958 mb central pressure corresponds to 91 kt in the northern wind-pressure 
relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track.  A pressure reading of 976 mb 
not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on 25th of August) suggests winds 
of at least 80 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 
100 kt chosen for best track (because of this information as well 
as extreme damage caused by winds in South Carolina).  This is the
basis for determining that the storm reached major hurricane intensity.

1885/02 - 2011 REVISION:

08430 08/21/1885 M= 8  2 SNBR= 234 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
08430 08/21/1885 M= 8  2 SNBR= 234 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
                                                          *

08435 08/21*212 670  40    0*212 684  40    0*214 698  40    0*215 714  40    0*
08440 08/22*217 725  50    0*220 738  50    0*222 751  50    0*226 763  50    0*
08445 08/23*230 771  60    0*235 780  60    0*242 786  60    0*251 791  60    0*
08450 08/24*261 795  70    0*270 799  70    0*283 803  80    0*294 806  80    0*
08450 08/24*261 795  70    0*270 799  70    0*283 803  80    0*294 806  90    0*
                                                                        **

08455 08/25*305 808  90    0*316 808 100    0*328 804  90    0*340 789  80    0*
08455 08/25*304 808  90    0*314 807  90    0*326 801  90  970*338 789  80    0*
            ***              *** *** ***      *** ***      *** *** 
                       
08460 08/26*350 769  70    0*359 748  70    0*370 720  80    0*384 679  80    0*
08460 08/26*350 769  70    0*360 748  70    0*370 720  80    0*384 679  80    0*
                             ***

08465 08/27*404 629  90  958*425 578  90    0*443 535  80    0*460 500  80    0*
08470 08/28E475 465  70    0E489 430  70    0E500 400  60    0E510 370  60    0*
08475 HR SC3 NC2 GA1DFL1
08475 HR SC2 NC1 GA1DFL1
         *** ***


#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon  Max   Saffir- Central  States 
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure Affected

2-8/25/1885    0900Z 32.2N  80.7W 100kt   3     (953mb)  SC3,NC2,GA1,DFL1
2-8/25/1885    1200Z 32.6N  80.1W  90kt   2      970mb   SC2,NC1,GA1,DFL1
               ****  ****   ****  ***     *      ***     *** ***

This hurricane along with four other 19th Century South Carolina hurricanes was the 
focus of a Master's Thesis by Doug Mayes at University of South Carolina (Mayes 2006).  
Meteorological, storm surge, and wind-caused structural damage evidence documented 
therein are all consistent with an analysis of a landfalling Category 2 hurricane in 
South Carolina, which would be a downgrade from a Category 3 hurricane originally.  
Additionally, Mayes documented a slight shift in landfall location.  These points are 
summarized from the thesis below:

1)  Careful analysis of a Charleston barometer (which was corrected for elevation, 
gravity, and attached thermometer) shows that the eye (not the eyewall) passed right 
over Charleston clearly with a lowest reading of 974 mb (pages 48-51 in Mayes 2006):  
“In Charleston the wind began blowing from the east on Monday, August 24th. It 
continued through the night shifting to the southeast. At daylight on Tuesday morning, 
August 25th, the wind was coming from the southeast at around 26 kts (13m/s)
with gusts reaching about 44 kts (22 ms-1). At 8:00 AM Tuesday the anemometer was 
broken by the wind. The Signal Service observer estimated wind velocities to be about 
56 kts (29 ms-1) between 7:30 and 7:45 AM, and 65-70 kts (33-36 ms-1) between 8:00 AM 
and 9:00 AM. At this time the eye of the hurricane passed over Charleston. The lull 
lasted approximately 40 minutes. The wind then returned from the west. The lowest 
barometer reading, 974 mb (28.72 inches), occurred at 9:15 AM.”
(The measurement was originally listed in Monthly Weather Review as 972.9 mb.)  This 
observation, along with others along the coast, suggest a landfall around 12 UTC on 
the 25th at John's Island near 32.6N, 80.1W.  Given the one hour time it took the 
hurricane to go from the coast to downtown Charleston, it is estimated that the central 
pressure at the coast was slightly lower - around 970 mb.  A 970 mb pressure suggest 
winds of 85 kt from the subtropical pressure-wind relationship – which would be a 
minimal Category 2 hurricane.  Additionally, there is no data in the area outside of 
Charleston (including instrumental data from Savannah and in North Carolina) to suggest 
that the storm was any stronger.  

2)  Detailed mapping of the extent of the storm surge at the block-scale in downtown 
Charleston reveals it is consistent with a low-moderate Category 2 hurricane when 
comparing with what is normally expected with the storm surge extent according to the 
SLOSH model.  Comparisons of the historical storm surge extent with the CARA-COOPS 
model (which took account the specific direction and intensity of a storm in its 
approach to Charleston) also shows very close results at a Category 2 hurricane intensity.  
Note that a Category 3 hurricane would be expected to have a storm surge extend over the 
Charleston Neck (considering various directions on the track), and this is clearly not 
demonstrated from the vast historical data (hundreds of accounts).

3)  Reconstruction of the wind-caused structural damage give analyses in mostly in the 
moderate category consistent with at most a Category 2 hurricane landfall.  Architectural 
aspects of tin roofs (and poor construction during Civil War recovery) is well known to 
historians, and this likely also contributed some to the damage during the hurricane.

Given this evidence (and on the rather weak account that it was classified as a 
Category 3 hurricane originally), the hurricane is reclassified  as a Category 2 
hurricane at landfall. Given the 10 kt resolution of HURDAT during this time period, 
90 kt is estimated for the maximum sustained winds to have occurred at landfall.  The 
impact is reduced from Category 3 to 2 for South Carolina and Category 2 to 1 for 
North Carolina.  The track is adjusted slightly to the southeast  on the 25th to 
position the hurricane as making a direct landfall on Charleston.  Additionally, from 
the descriptions of moderate wind damage to northeast Florida as the system skirted the 
coast, winds are boosted slightly from 80 to 90 kt at 18 UTC on the 24th, though the 
impact is kept at a Category 1 for that portion of Florida.

********************************************************************************

1885/03:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United
States.  The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle 
of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until 
its dissipation below tropical storm intensity).

********************************************************************************

1885/04:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United
States.  Two pressure readings of 973 mb and 975 mb not in the hurricane's
center (both at 06 UTC on the 23rd of September) suggests winds of at
least 80 kt and 79 kt respectively from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track.  This storm is determined to 
have reached hurricane status based upon these peripheral pressures.

********************************************************************************

1885/05:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  999 mb central pressure
corresponds to a wind of 49 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 50 kt utilized in best track.  Storm is determined to
have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ship
"Sirius".

********************************************************************************

1885/06:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  Inland decay model of Kaplan 
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United
States.  Storm determined to have reached hurricane intensity while
over the Atlantic based upon reports from the ship "Lone Star".

1885/06 - 2003 REVISION:

08370 09/24/1885 M= 9  6 SNBR= 233 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
08370 09/24/1885 M= 9  6 SNBR= 237 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

08375 09/24*264 878  40    0*267 879  40    0*270 880  40    0*274 881  40    0
08380 09/25*278 883  50    0*282 884  50    0*287 886  50    0*290 888  50    0
08385 09/26*293 889  60    0*297 890  60    0*300 891  60    0*302 890  60    0
08390 09/27*303 889  60    0*304 888  50    0*305 886  50    0*306 884  40    0
08395 09/28*306 881  40    0*306 878  40    0*306 874  40    0*306 870  40    0
08400 09/29*306 865  40    0*306 860  40    0*305 854  40    0*304 848  40    0
08400 09/29*306 865  30    0*306 860  30    0*305 854  30    0*304 848  30    0
                     **               **               **               **

08405 09/30*303 840  40    0*302 833  40    0*302 828  40    0*302 818  40    0
08405 09/30*303 840  30    0*302 833  30    0*302 828  30    0*302 818  30    0
                     **               **               **               **

08410 10/01*304 808  40    0*307 796  40    0*312 788  50    0*320 778  60    0
08415 10/02*329 770  60    0*338 763  60    0*345 756  70    0*355 741  70    0
08420 HR    

Decay stage of this storm to a tropical depression while over land
on the 29th and 30th inadvertently left out from the first revision of 
the best track.  

********************************************************************************


1885/07:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996).  Track 
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).  A pressure reading of 982 mb
not in the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 29th of September)
suggests winds of at least 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for the best track.  Storm determined to
have reached hurricane intensity based upon this peripheral pressure
reading and wind reports from the ship "Mistletoe".

********************************************************************************

1885/08:  No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).  
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds 
over the eastern United States.  The best track provided appears to 
describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation 
as a tropical storm until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).

1885/08:  2003 REVISION

08585 10/08/1885 M= 7  8 SNBR= 235 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
08585 10/10/1885 M= 5  8 SNBR= 239 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                    *          ***

08590 10/08*172 805  40    0*176 806  40    0*180 809  40    0*187 811  40    0
08595 10/09*195 815  40    0*201 816  40    0*209 821  40    0*217 823  40    0
(The 8th and 9th are omitted from the revised HURDAT.)

08600 10/10*225 826  40    0*232 828  40    0*239 830  40    0*247 833  40    0
08600 10/10*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*239 830  40    0*247 833  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08605 10/11*257 836  50    0*265 839  50    0*273 840  60    0*286 836  60    0
08610 10/12*300 830  50    0*314 824  50    0*330 815  40    0*340 808  40    0
08615 10/13*349 800  40    0*362 790  40    0E374 784  40    0E390 780  40    0
08620 10/14E405 775  40    0E420 770  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
08625 TS

Re-analysis of Cuban tropical storms and hurricanes (Perez 2000) reveals
that this system was not yet of tropical storm strength from the 8th 
until early on the 10th based upon the Cuban observational network.
While it is quite possible that the system was of tropical depression
intensity on these dates, formative tropical depression stage is not
included in HURDAT until 1886.

********************************************************************************

08500 06/13/1886 M= 3  1 SNBR= 236 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
08500 06/13/1886 M= 3  1 SNBR= 240 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2 
                               ***                        *

08505 06/13*  0   0   0    0*232 957  35    0*247 959  40    0*260 960  45    0
08510 06/14*269 958  45    0*279 954  50    0*289 946  50    0*298 938  50    0
08510 06/14*269 958  55    0*279 953  65    0*289 947  75    0*299 940  85    0
                     **          ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **

08515 06/15*304 928  50    0*309 918  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
08515 06/15*306 930  60    0*310 918  45    0*312 904  35    0*312 890  30    0
            *** ***  **      ***      **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08520 TS
08520 HRCTX2 LA2   
      ****** ***

The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) is to continue the 
storm until 18Z on the 15th to allow for decay to tropical depression stage.  
Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the
track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Storm is upgraded to a Category 2
hurricane (85 kt) at landfall based upon damage and 7 foot storm tide at 
Sabine Pass, Texas (Partagas and Diaz 1996a).  Inland decay model of 
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas and 
Louisiana.  

1886/01 - 2011 REVISION:

08700 06/13/1886 M= 3  1 SNBR= 241 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
08705 06/13*  0   0   0    0*232 957  35    0*247 959  40    0*260 960  45    0*
08710 06/14*269 958  55    0*279 953  65    0*289 947  75    0*299 940  85    0*
08715 06/15*306 930  60    0*310 918  45    0*312 904  35    0*312 890  30    0*
08720 HRCTX2 LA2                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-6/14/1886    1600Z 29.6N  94.2W   85kt  2    ---   (973mb)   CTX2,LA2
1-6/14/1886    1600Z 29.6N  94.2W   85kt  2    ---   (970mb)   CTX2,LA2
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 85 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb - 
for an 85 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
                                                                           
********************************************************************************


08525 06/18/1886 M= 6  2 SNBR= 237 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
08525 06/17/1886 M= 8  2 SNBR= 241 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
         **         *          ***                        *

(17th not in HURDAT previously.)
08530 06/17*191 848  35    0*196 851  35    0*200 853  40    0*204 854  40    0

08530 06/18*  0   0   0    0*194 850  35    0*198 853  50    0*201 856  65    0
08532 06/18*207 856  45    0*211 856  50    0*217 857  55    0*221 857  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08535 06/19*204 858  70    0*208 861  75    0*214 864  80    0*218 865  80    0
08535 06/19*225 857  70    0*229 856  75    0*233 853  80    0*238 851  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

08540 06/20*224 868  85    0*232 869  85    0*242 870  85    0*254 868  85    0
08540 06/20*243 849  85    0*247 847  85    0*253 845  85    0*263 844  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

08545 06/21*267 864  85    0*280 857  85    0*294 850  85    0*308 843  75    0
08545 06/21*277 842  85    0*289 841  85    0*303 840  80    0*313 838  65    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08550 06/22*323 832  50    0*338 822  40    0*352 810  35    0*363 793  35    0
08550 06/22*323 832  45    0*338 822  40    0*352 810  35    0*363 793  35    0
                     **

08555 06/23*373 780  35    0*384 769  35    0*393 753  35    0*399 732  35    0
08555 06/23*373 780  30    0*384 769  30    0*393 753  30    0*399 732  30    0
                     **               **               **               **

(24th not in HURDAT previously.)
08557 06/24*402 700  30    0*401 660  30    0*400 615  30    0*399 570  30    0

08560 HR
08560 HRAFL2 GA1
      ****** ***

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large 
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.  Inland decay model of 
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United 
States.  

1886/02 - 2006 REVISION:

08725 06/17/1886 M= 8  2 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
08730 06/17*191 848  35    0*196 851  35    0*200 853  40    0*204 854  40    0*
08735 06/18*207 856  45    0*211 856  50    0*217 857  55    0*221 857  65    0*
08740 06/19*225 857  70    0*229 856  75    0*233 853  80    0*238 851  80    0*
08745 06/20*243 849  85    0*247 847  85    0*253 845  85    0*263 844  85    0*
08750 06/21*277 842  85    0*289 841  85    0*303 840  80    0*313 838  65    0*
08755 06/22*323 832  45    0*338 822  40    0*352 810  35    0*363 793  35    0*
08760 06/23*373 780  30    0*384 769  30    0*393 753  30    0*399 732  30    0*
08765 06/24*402 700  30    0*401 660  30    0*400 615  30    0*399 570  30    0*
08770 HRAFL2 GA1                                                                
08770 HRAFL2IGA1                                                                
            ****

Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's 
Atlantic coast.

1886/02 - 2011 REVISION:

08725 06/17/1886 M= 8  2 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
08730 06/17*191 848  35    0*196 851  35    0*200 853  40    0*204 854  40    0*
08735 06/18*207 856  45    0*211 856  50    0*217 857  55    0*221 857  65    0*
08740 06/19*225 857  70    0*229 856  75    0*233 853  80    0*238 851  80    0*
08745 06/20*243 849  85    0*247 847  85    0*253 845  85    0*263 844  85    0*
08750 06/21*277 842  85    0*289 841  85    0*303 840  80    0*313 838  65    0*
08755 06/22*323 832  45    0*338 822  40    0*352 810  35    0*363 793  35    0*
08760 06/23*373 780  30    0*384 769  30    0*393 753  30    0*399 732  30    0*
08765 06/24*402 700  30    0*401 660  30    0*400 615  30    0*399 570  30    0*
08770 HRAFL2IGA1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
2-6/21/1886    1100Z 30.1N  84.0W   85kt  2    ---   (973mb)   AFL2,IGA1
2-6/21/1886    1100Z 30.1N  84.0W   85kt  2    ---   (970mb)   AFL2,IGA1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 85 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb - 
for an 85 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

08565 06/27/1886 M= 6  3 SNBR= 238 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
08565 06/27/1886 M= 6  3 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***                        *

08570 06/27*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*170 801  35    0*176 823  45    0
08570 06/27*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*183 797  35    0*192 800  45    0
                                              *** ***          *** ***  

08575 06/28*183 842  65    0*191 859  80    0*200 871  85    0*211 881  80    0
08575 06/28*199 803  55    0*207 807  65    0*215 815  75    0*220 825  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

08580 06/29*223 882  80    0*235 883  85    0*247 884  85    0*255 881  85    0
08580 06/29*224 835  70    0*229 842  70    0*237 853  75    0*246 860  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08585 06/30*260 878  85    0*266 875  85    0*273 869  85    0*282 859  85    0
08585 06/30*256 864  85    0*264 867  85    0*273 867  85    0*288 860  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***              ***          *** ***

08590 07/01*289 848  85    0*309 828  80    0*324 818  60    0*338 803  45    0
08590 07/01*304 844  70    0*318 827  55    0*330 813  50    0*338 803  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  ** 

08595 07/02*349 791  40    0*361 780  35    0*372 770  35    0*382 753  35    0
08600 HR  
08600 HRAFL2 
        ****

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large 
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track
changes are found to be reasonable.  Analyses from Perez (2000) indicates 
that the hurricane was only Category 1 at its landfall in Cuba; winds are 
adjusted downward on the 28th and 29th.  Changes made to the track near 
Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000).  Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
the eastern United States. 

1886/03 - 2006 REVISION:

08775 06/27/1886 M= 6  3 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
08780 06/27*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*183 797  35    0*192 800  45    0*
08785 06/28*199 803  55    0*207 807  65    0*215 815  75    0*220 825  80    0*
08790 06/29*224 835  70    0*229 842  70    0*237 853  75    0*246 860  80    0*
08795 06/30*256 864  85    0*264 867  85    0*273 867  85    0*288 860  85    0*
08800 07/01*304 844  70    0*318 827  55    0*330 813  50    0*338 803  45    0*
08805 07/02*349 791  40    0*361 780  35    0*372 770  35    0*382 753  35    0*
08810 HRAFL2                                                                    
08810 HRAFL2IGA1    
            **** 

Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia 
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as causing
inland hurricane conditions in Georgia based upon the existing track
and intensity in HURDAT.

1886/03 - 2011 REVISION:

08775 06/27/1886 M= 6  3 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
08780 06/27*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*183 797  35    0*192 800  45    0*
08785 06/28*199 803  55    0*207 807  65    0*215 815  75    0*220 825  80    0*
08790 06/29*224 835  70    0*229 842  70    0*237 853  75    0*246 860  80    0*
08795 06/30*256 864  85    0*264 867  85    0*273 867  85    0*288 860  85    0*
08800 07/01*304 844  70    0*318 827  55    0*330 813  50    0*338 803  45    0*
08805 07/02*349 791  40    0*361 780  35    0*372 770  35    0*382 753  35    0*
08810 HRAFL2IGA1

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
3-6/30/1886    2100Z 29.7N  85.2W   85kt  2    ---   (973mb)   AFL2,IGA1
3-6/30/1886    2100Z 29.7N  85.2W   85kt  2    ---   (970mb)   AFL2,IGA1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 85 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb - 
for an 85 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

08605 07/14/1886 M= 7  4 SNBR= 239 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
08605 07/14/1886 M=11  4 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                   **          ***                        *   

08610 07/14*  0   0   0    0*189 829  35    0*192 834  40    0*197 839  40    0
08610 07/14*  0   0   0    0*189 829  35    0*192 834  40    0*194 838  40    0
                                                               *** ***

08615 07/15*202 844  45    0*207 850  50    0*213 855  55    0*219 861  60    0
08615 07/15*196 842  45    0*198 846  45    0*200 850  50    0*202 853  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08620 07/16*226 868  65    0*234 875  70    0*241 881  75    0*251 883  75    0
08620 07/16*204 856  55    0*206 858  55    0*207 860  60    0*209 859  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08625 07/17*260 883  80    0*270 882  85    0*274 876  85    0*277 869  85    0
08625 07/17*211 857  60    0*213 855  60    0*215 853  65    0*224 848  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08630 07/18*278 860  85    0*279 851  85    0*281 843  85    0*286 832  85    0
08630 07/18*237 844  70    0*251 839  70    0*265 835  70    0*276 833  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08635 07/19*291 824  85    0*299 813  80    0*305 803  75    0*312 792  70    0
08635 07/19*287 828  70    0*295 821  55    0*303 810  50    0*314 786  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08640 07/20*319 781  70    0*328 770  70    0*338 758  70    0*347 738  70    0
08640 07/20*327 756  70    0*339 726  75    0*350 700  75    0*358 680  75    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(21st to 24th not in HURDAT previously.)
08641 07/21*368 653  70    0*377 626  70    0*387 600  70    0*398 569  70  990
08642 07/22*414 535  70    0*430 498  70    0*443 463  70    0*451 431  65    0
08643 07/23E461 395  60    0E470 356  60    0E480 320  60    0E495 290  60    0
08644 07/24E515 258  60    0E537 227  60    0E555 210  55    0E573 195  50    0

08645 HR 
08645 HRAFL1
        ****

The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) is to start the 
storm on the 14th as depicted in Neumann et al instead of Partagas
and Diaz' start date of the 16th.  Partagas and Diaz otherwise made 
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), which
are found to be reasonable.  A possible central pressure of 990 mb
at 21Z on the 21st suggests 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure 
relationship.  Peripheral pressures of 993 mb at 06Z on the 22nd suggest at 
least 59 kt.  70 kt chosen for best track for the 21st and early on the
22nd.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for 
inland winds over Florida.  Winds from the 17th to the 19th lowered slightly
as available observations indicate this system was likely of minimal 
hurricane intensity while in the Gulf of Mexico and at landfall in Northwest
Florida.  Observations from Sandrik (2001) suggest that the system weakened
quickly over Florida, before re-intensifying over the Atlantic after
oceanfall.

1886/04 - 2011 REVISION:

08815 07/14/1886 M=11  4 SNBR= 244 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
08820 07/14*  0   0   0    0*189 829  35    0*192 834  40    0*194 838  40    0*
08825 07/15*196 842  45    0*198 846  45    0*200 850  50    0*202 853  50    0*
08830 07/16*204 856  55    0*206 858  55    0*207 860  60    0*209 859  60    0*
08835 07/17*211 857  60    0*213 855  60    0*215 853  65    0*224 848  65    0*
08840 07/18*237 844  70    0*251 839  70    0*265 835  70    0*276 833  70    0*
08845 07/19*287 828  70    0*295 821  55    0*303 810  50    0*314 786  60    0*
08850 07/20*327 756  70    0*339 726  75    0*350 700  75    0*358 680  75    0*
08855 07/21*368 653  70    0*377 626  70    0*387 600  70    0*398 569  70  990*
08860 07/22*414 535  70    0*430 498  70    0*443 463  70    0*451 431  65    0*
08865 07/23E461 395  60    0E470 356  60    0E480 320  60    0E495 290  60    0*
08870 07/24E515 258  60    0E537 227  60    0E555 210  55    0E573 195  50    0*
08875 HRAFL1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-7/19/1886    0100Z 28.8N  82.7W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AFL1
4-7/19/1886    0100Z 28.8N  82.7W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AFL1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

08650 08/12/1886 M=10  5 SNBR= 240 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
08650 08/12/1886 M=10  5 SNBR= 244 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=4
                               ***                        *

08655 08/12*  0   0   0    0*105 580  35    0*111 589  50    0*117 606  60    0
08655 08/12*  0   0   0    0*105 580  35    0*111 589  40    0*118 598  45    0
                                                       **      *** ***  **

08660 08/13*123 621  70    0*129 635  75    0*133 646  80    0*137 654  80    0
08660 08/13*125 607  50    0*132 617  55    0*140 627  60    0*146 639  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08665 08/14*140 661  85    0*143 667  85    0*147 676  85    0*151 687  85    0
08665 08/14*152 652  70    0*157 662  75    0*163 673  80    0*169 683  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

08670 08/15*155 698  85    0*159 708  85    0*164 719  85    0*169 729  85    0
08670 08/15*174 693  85    0*179 702  85    0*183 713  80    0*186 726  75    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08675 08/16*174 740  85    0*180 750  85    0*187 760  85    0*199 769  80    0
08720 08/16*188 739  70    0*191 752  80    0*195 765  85    0*204 773  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

08680 08/17*211 775  75    0*221 782  70    0*229 796  55    0*238 811  60    0
08680 08/17*213 781  75    0*221 790  70    0*225 797  55    0*231 805  60    0
            *** ***              ***          *** ***          *** ***

08685 08/18*247 833  65    0*255 856  70    0*261 873  75    0*263 886  75    0
08685 08/18*238 817  65    0*243 830  70    0*247 843  75    0*253 861  75    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

08690 08/19*262 898  80    0*262 910  80    0*263 919  85    0*265 933  85    0
08690 08/19*256 879  80    0*259 897  90    0*263 919 100    0*265 933 110    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **              ***              ***

08695 08/20*268 945  85    0*274 956  85    0*280 966  85    0*288 976  70  984
08695 08/20*268 945 120    0*274 956 130    0*280 966 135  925*290 980  85  965
                    ***              ***               **  *** *** ***  **  ***

08700 08/21*297 984  60    0*308 993  50    0*3201000  35    0*3351013  25    0
08700 08/21*300 990  60    0*310 999  50    0*3201007  35    0*3351013  25    0
            *** ***          *** ***             ****

08705 HR 
08705 HRBTX4
      ******

The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) is to start the 
storm on the 12th as depicted in Neumann et al. instead of Partagas
and Diaz' start date of the 13th.  Partagas and Diaz otherwise made 
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), which
are found to be reasonable.  A slower intensification of the storm 
was indicated here compared with the original HURDAT for the 12th to the 
14th due to evidence of tropical storm intensity until the 14th.  The
analysis by Perez (2000) confirms landfall in Cuba as a Category 2 hurricane.
Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications 
suggested by Perez (2000).  

Estimated central pressure from Ho (1989) of 915 mb at landfall in Texas 
is incorrect since it relied upon a pressure measurement from San Antonio, 
Texas, which has been found to be a surface pressure rather than a sea level 
pressure value.  Additionally, it is likely that this was not a central
pressure measurement either as strong winds were still observed at the time
of lowest pressure and that winds only shifted from northeast to southeast.
This sea level pressure measurement of 971 mb (corrected from the 948 mb 
surface pressure value) at 19Z on the 20th implies a central pressure of
around 965 mb, assuming that the RMW estimate of Ho (of 12 nmi) is slightly
too small (15 nmi utilized instead).  965 mb suggests winds of 94 kt from 
the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship for a marine exposure - 85 kt 
utilized in best track for this inland location.  Using methodology in Ho 
et al. (1987) as modified by B. Jarvinen (personal communication), a 6.5 hr 
transit time from landfall to a position near San Antonio, and the 965 mb 
central pressure near San Antonio, a new value of 925 mb at landfall is 
estimated for this hurricane.  This suggests winds of 133 kt from the Gulf 
of Mexico wind-pressure relationship.  The estimate of 15 nmi for RMW is 
slightly smaller than climatology (18 nmi) for this latitude and central 
pressure (Vickery et al. 2000), supporting slightly stronger winds for this 
particular storm.   135 kt is chosen as the maximum sustained winds at 
landfall.  This is consistent with the very high storm tide and extreme 
destruction in Indianola, Texas.  Storm surge modeling efforts with the
SLOSH model (B. Jarvinen, personal communication) indicate that a 925 mb
central pressure and RMW of 15 nmi provides reasonable matches to observed
surge values.  Positions are altered slightly after landfall to better 
account for passage of the hurricane's center near San Antonio at 19Z on 
the 20th.A storm tide of 15' was reported for Indianola, Texas in Roth 
(1997b).

1886/05 - 2011 REVISION:

08880 08/12/1886 M=10  5 SNBR= 245 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=4                     
08885 08/12*  0   0   0    0*105 580  35    0*111 589  40    0*118 598  45    0*
08890 08/13*125 607  50    0*132 617  55    0*140 627  60    0*146 639  65    0*
08895 08/14*152 652  70    0*157 662  75    0*163 673  80    0*169 683  85    0*
08900 08/15*174 693  85    0*179 702  85    0*183 713  80    0*186 726  75    0*
08905 08/16*188 739  70    0*191 752  80    0*195 765  85    0*204 773  80    0*
08910 08/17*213 781  75    0*221 790  70    0*225 797  55    0*231 805  60    0*
08915 08/18*238 817  65    0*243 830  70    0*247 843  75    0*253 861  75    0*
08920 08/19*256 879  80    0*259 897  90    0*263 919 100    0*265 933 110    0*
08925 08/20*268 945 120    0*274 956 130    0*280 966 135  925*290 980  85  965*
08925 08/20*268 945 120    0*274 956 130    0*280 966 130  925*290 980  85  965*
                                                      ***

08930 08/21*300 990  60    0*310 996  50    0*3201007  35    0*3351013  25    0*
08935 HRBTX4                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
5-8/20/1886    1300Z 28.1N  96.8W  135kt  4   15nmi   925mb    BTX4
5-8/20/1886    1300Z 28.1N  96.8W  130kt  4   15nmi   925mb    BTX4
                                   ***

The 2003 reanalysis utilized a central pressure at landfall of 925 mb
at 13Z on the 20th in central Texas, which suggested 133 kt from the original
Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind relationship.  The Brown et al. (2006) 
pressure-wind relationship suggests winds of 128 kt from the north of
25N equation.  Given an RMW close in size to the climatological average for this 
central pressure and latitude (15 nmi - Vickery et al. 2000) and a near average 
translational velocity at landfall of 12 kt, winds are estimated at landfall to 
be 130 kt.  This is a slight reduction from the 135 kt from the 2003 reanalysis, 
but retains the Category 4 status at landfall in Texas.

********************************************************************************

08710 08/16/1886 M=12  6 SNBR= 241 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
08710 08/15/1886 M=13  6 SNBR= 245 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **        **          ***

(15th not in HURDAT previously.)
08712 08/15*146 545  55    0*144 555  60    0*143 565  65    0*141 577  70    0

08715 08/16*  0   0   0    0*120 600  45    0*120 612  50    0*121 624  60    0
08715 08/16*138 589  75    0*135 600  85    0*130 613  95    0*127 624  95    0
            *** ***  **      ***      **      *** ***  **      ***      **

08720 08/17*122 636  70    0*123 649  75    0*125 662  80    0*127 676  85    0
08720 08/17*125 637  95    0*125 651  90    0*125 665  85    0*125 678  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  

08725 08/18*129 691  85    0*131 706  85    0*134 720  85    0*137 731  85    0
08725 08/18*126 692  85    0*128 706  85    0*130 717  85    0*132 725  85    0
            *** ***          ***              *** ***          *** ***  

08730 08/19*140 741  85    0*144 749  85    0*148 755  85    0*153 760  85    0
08730 08/19*137 733  85    0*141 739  85    0*147 745  85    0*159 753  90    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

08735 08/20*159 768  85    0*165 775  85    0*170 779  85    0*175 782  85    0
08735 08/20*170 762  95    0*179 768  95    0*185 773  95    0*190 778  95    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08740 08/21*180 785  85    0*185 787  85    0*190 791  85    0*195 794  85    0
08740 08/21*197 784  95    0*204 788 100    0*210 790 105    0*213 790 105    0
            *** ***  **      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

08745 08/22*199 796  85    0*205 798  85    0*214 800  85    0*228 805  80    0
08745 08/22*215 790 105    0*217 790  90    0*220 790  80    0*231 790  80    0
            *** *** ***      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

08750 08/23*241 802  80    0*260 791  85    0*280 779  85    0*298 768  85    0
08750 08/23*246 790  80    0*263 787  85    0*280 779  85    0*298 768  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          

08755 08/24*318 755  85    0*336 743  85    0*350 732  85    0*360 723  85    0
08760 08/25*367 716  85    0*374 708  85    0*382 700  85    0*391 690  85    0
08765 08/26*399 678  85    0*408 665  80    0*416 650  75    0*420 632  70    0
08770 08/27*422 611  65    0*425 586  60    0*430 560  60    0*436 533  60    0
08775 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track changes are
found to be reasonable.  979 mb peripheral pressure at 00Z on the 18th 
suggests at least 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt 
retained in best track.  977 mb peripheral pressure at 06Z on the 20th 
suggests at least 81 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 
95 kt used in best track.  989 mb peripheral pressure on 18Z on the 26th 
suggests at least least 64 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship 
- 70 kt used in best track.  Winds increased from the 15th to the 17th and 
the 19th to the 23rd compared to original HURDAT based upon numerous ship 
reports, the peripheral pressure readings and moderate to severe damage in 
St. Vincent, Jamaica and Cuba.  Hurricane is analyzed by Perez (2000) to be
a Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba; winds increased on the 21st and 
22nd accordingly.  Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with 
modifications suggested by Perez (2000).  Lifecycle of this hurricane is not
complete as information on the genesis (and possibly decay) are not 
available.

********************************************************************************


08777 08/20/1886 M= 6  7 SNBR= 246 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
08777 08/20*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*317 710  40    0*301 690  50    0
08777 08/21*292 655  60    0*300 627  75    0*323 617  95    0*338 624 100    0
08777 08/22*350 634 100    0*359 642 100    0*370 650 100    0*381 660  95    0
08777 08/23*397 669  90    0*411 665  85    0*423 650  80    0*441 622  75    0
08777 08/24*459 584  70    0*476 541  65    0E485 500  60    0E486 461  55    0
08777 08/25E485 413  50    0E483 373  50    0E483 333  50    0E483 295  50    0
08777 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented 
hurricane.  Peripheral pressure measurements of 962 mb at 15Z on the 
21st and 963 mb at 04Z on the 22nd suggest at least 93 and 94 kt, 
respectively, from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt
used in the best track, which makes the storm a major hurricane.  983 mb
peripheral pressure value at 00Z on the 23rd suggests at least 70 kt
from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt utilized in
best track.

********************************************************************************

08780 09/15/1886 M=10  7 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
08780 09/16/1886 M= 9  8 SNBR= 247 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
         **        **          ***                        *

08785 09/15*  0   0   0    0*140 602  35    0*144 613  45    0*148 626  60    0
(Track on the 15th is removed, since storm is relocated and begun on 16th.)

08790 09/16*150 640  70    0*152 654  80    0*153 668  80    0*152 682  85    0
08790 09/16*210 655  35    0*210 666  35    0*210 677  35    0*210 689  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08795 09/17*152 697  85    0*152 712  85    0*152 727  85    0*159 748  85    0
08795 09/17*210 704  40    0*210 717  40    0*210 730  45    0*210 747  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08800 09/18*174 761  85    0*190 781  85    0*203 802  85    0*213 825  85    0
08800 09/18*210 763  40    0*210 775  35    0*210 790  35    0*212 805  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08805 09/19*221 852  85    0*226 879  85    0*229 902  85    0*226 920  85    0
08805 09/19*213 819  45    0*214 830  50    0*215 843  55    0*217 857  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08810 09/20*221 931  85    0*219 943  85    0*220 950  85    0*222 952  85    0
08810 09/20*220 870  65    0*222 883  70    0*223 897  75    0*223 909  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08815 09/21*224 955  85    0*227 957  85    0*230 959  85    0*233 961  85    0
08815 09/21*223 921  85    0*224 933  85    0*225 947  85    0*228 954  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

08820 09/22*237 963  85    0*240 965  85    0*244 967  85    0*249 969  85    0
08820 09/22*234 960  85    0*240 965  85    0*244 967  85    0*249 969  85    0
            *** *** 

08825 09/23*254 971  85    0*259 972  85    0*265 974  85    0*271 975  80    0
08825 09/23*254 971  85    0*259 972  85    0*265 974  80    0*271 975  75    0
                                                       **               ** 

08830 09/24*278 975  75    0*285 974  65    0*292 973  45    0*309 970  30    0
08830 09/24*278 975  70    0*285 974  65    0*292 973  45    0*300 970  30    0
                     **                                        ***

08835 HR
08835 HRATX1BTX1
        ********

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 7. 
These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Storm is reduced in 
intensity relative to original HURDAT from the 16th to the 20th since 
available observational evidence suggests that the storm reached hurricane 
strength after it reached the Gulf of Mexico.  A peripheral pressure reading 
of 987 mb on 03Z on the 23rd suggests at least 67 kt from the Gulf of Mexico 
wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in best track at landfall in 
Mexico.  Category 1 conditions (80 kt) in Texas are supported by moderate 
wind-caused damage in Brownsville.  Track slightly altered at the storm's end 
for a more realistic motion.

********************************************************************************

08840 09/26/1886 M= 5  8 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
08840 09/22/1886 M= 9  9 SNBR= 248 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **         *  *       ***

(22nd to the 25th not in HURDAT previously.)
08841 09/22*229 667  50    0*232 666  50    0*235 665  55    0*237 664  55    0
08842 09/23*240 663  60    0*244 661  65    0*247 660  70    0*248 660  75    0
08843 09/24*250 659  80    0*252 657  85    0*253 655  85    0*254 654  85    0
08844 09/25*255 652  85    0*257 650  85    0*258 650  85    0*260 650  85    0

08845 09/26*  0   0   0    0*215 655  35    0*223 662  40    0*235 666  45    0
08845 09/26*261 651  85    0*262 652  85    0*263 653  85    0*266 657  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08850 09/27*246 669  55    0*256 673  60    0*262 676  65    0*267 679  70    0
08850 09/27*267 660  85    0*268 663  85    0*270 670  85    0*272 674  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08855 09/28*271 683  75    0*275 686  75    0*279 690  80    0*283 695  85    0
08855 09/28*275 679  85    0*279 683  85    0*283 687  85    0*288 689  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

08860 09/29*287 701  85    0*290 707  85    0*294 712  85    0*298 715  85    0
08860 09/29*292 691  85    0*297 692  85    0*300 693  85    0*305 695  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

08865 09/30*301 715  80    0*305 714  75    0*311 710  50    0*317 705  35    0
08865 09/30*310 697  80    0*314 699  75    0*317 700  50    0*322 701  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

08870 HR 

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 8.  
These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Storm is increased in 
intensity relative to original HURDAT from the 26th to the 28th based upon 
ship reports in Partagas and Diaz.  A peripheral pressure of 990 mb on 12Z 
on the 23rd suggests at least 63 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure 
relationship - 70 kt utilized in best track.  Complete lifecycle of this 
hurricane is not available as the genesis was not documented.

********************************************************************************


08875 10/08/1886 M= 6  9 SNBR= 244 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
08875 10/08/1886 M= 6 10 SNBR= 249 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                      **       ***                        *

08880 10/08*199 825  35    0*203 830  35    0*208 833  40    0*212 837  45    0
08880 10/08*199 825  50    0*203 830  55    0*208 833  60    0*212 837  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

08885 10/09*217 841  50    0*222 844  55    0*227 848  55    0*233 851  60    0
08885 10/09*217 841  65    0*222 844  60    0*227 848  60    0*233 851  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

08890 10/10*239 854  65    0*246 857  70    0*252 860  75    0*257 864  80    0
08895 10/11*262 869  85    0*267 875  85    0*272 881  85    0*276 890  85    0
08895 10/11*262 869  85    0*267 875  90    0*272 881  95    0*276 890 100    0
                                      **               **              ***

08900 10/12*279 903  85    0*282 917  85    0*286 927  85    0*292 933  85    0
08900 10/12*279 903 105    0*282 917 105    0*286 927 105    0*292 933 105    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

08905 10/13*301 936  75    0*311 937  65    0*323 935  50    0*332 929  35    0
08905 10/13*301 936  80    0*311 937  65    0*323 935  50    0*332 929  35    0
                     **

08910 HR
08910 HR LA3CTX2
         *******

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 9.  Peripheral pressures of 991 mb (20Z on the 9th), 985 mb (12Z on 
the 10th), 987 mb (16Z on the 10th) and 983 mb (12Z on the 11th) suggest 
at least 61 kt, 70 kt, 67 kt and 72 kt, respectively, from the Gulf of 
Mexico wind-pressure relationship.  Winds are increased from the 8th and 
the 9th to accommodate ship reports and effects in Western Cuba consistent 
with landfall of a Category 1 hurricane, which matches the assessment by
Perez (2000).  Winds are increased for the 11th and 12th based upon ship 
reports and effects at landfall in Texas and Louisiana.  A storm tide of
12' was reported in Johnson Bayou, La. by Roth (1997a).  This suggests
landfall of a Category 3 (955 mb/105 kt) hurricane based upon SLOSH runs 
(B. Jarvinen, personal communication.)   Lifecycle of this hurricane is not 
complete as information on the genesis is not available.

1886/10 - 2011 REVISION:

09165 10/08/1886 M= 6 10 SNBR= 250 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
09170 10/08*199 825  50    0*203 830  55    0*208 833  60    0*212 837  65    0*
09175 10/09*217 841  65    0*222 844  60    0*227 848  60    0*233 851  65    0*
09180 10/10*239 854  65    0*246 857  70    0*252 860  75    0*257 864  80    0*
09185 10/11*262 869  85    0*267 875  90    0*272 881  95    0*276 890 100    0*
09190 10/12*279 903 105    0*282 917 105    0*286 927 105    0*292 933 105    0*
09195 10/13*301 936  75    0*311 937  65    0*323 935  50    0*332 929  35    0*
09200 HR LA3CTX2                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
10-10/12/1886  2200Z 29.8N  93.5W  105kt  3    ---   (955mb)   LA3,CTX2
10-10/12/1886  2200Z 29.8N  93.5W  105kt  3    ---   (950mb)   LA3,CTX2
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 105 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 955 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 950 mb - 
for a 105 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.


********************************************************************************

08911 10/10/1886 M= 6 11 SNBR= 250 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
08911 10/10*291 605  35    0*295 603  35    0*300 600  35    0*304 598  35    0
08911 10/11*307 597  40    0*311 595  40    0*313 593  40    0*316 590  40    0
08911 10/12*318 587  40    0*321 584  40    0*325 580  40    0*328 576  40    0
08911 10/13*331 571  45    0*334 566  45    0*337 560  45    0*340 553  45    0
08911 10/14*343 545  45    0*345 539  45    0*347 530  45    0*348 517  45    0
08911 10/15*350 502  40    0*350 484  40    0*350 470  35    0*350 459  35    0
08911 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented 
tropical storm.  

********************************************************************************

08915 10/22/1886 M= 4 10 SNBR= 245 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
08915 10/21/1886 M= 6 12 SNBR= 251 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                    * **       ***        

(21st not in HURDAT previously.)
08920 10/21*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*178 730  35    0

08920 10/22*  0   0   0    0*199 687  35    0*210 686  35    0*220 682  40    0
08920 10/22*187 727  35    0*196 724  35    0*205 720  35    0*212 715  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

08925 10/23*229 676  45    0*239 669  50    0*248 660  50    0*258 650  50    0
08925 10/23*219 708  45    0*227 699  50    0*237 687  55    0*244 675  60    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08930 10/24*267 639  50    0*277 626  50    0*286 612  50    0*295 600  45    0
08930 10/24*249 666  60    0*253 657  60    0*257 645  60    0*260 634  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

08935 10/25*305 585  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
08935 10/25*264 626  55    0*267 617  50    0*270 607  45    0*272 597  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(26th not in HURDAT previously.)
08937 10/26*274 589  40    0*275 581  40    0*277 570  35    0*279 560  35    0

08940 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 10.  
These track changes are shown to be reasonable.  Peripheral pressure of 
992 mb at 09Z on the 24th suggests at least 61 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen in best track because of lack of 
hurricane winds reported and very large size of system (implying a weaker 
pressure gradient for a given central pressure).  Peripheral pressure of 
997 mb on the 24th suggests at least 53 kt from the subtropical wind-
pressure relationship - 60 kt utilized.

********************************************************************************

1886 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned three additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) July 6-7, 1886:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) September 7, 1886:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) October 1-14, 1886:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.

******************************************************************************* 

08941 05/15/1887 M= 6  1 SNBR= 252 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
08941 05/15*293 638  35    0*298 642  35    0*303 647  40    0*308 652  40    0
08941 05/16*313 655  45    0*318 657  50    0*323 660  55    0*327 663  60    0
08941 05/17*332 665  60    0*337 667  60    0*343 667  60    0*349 667  55    0
08941 05/18*354 667  50    0*359 667  45    0E365 667  40    0E377 667  40    0
08941 05/19E395 664  40    0E411 658  35    0E423 650  35    0E440 635  35    0
08941 05/20E470 605  35    0E510 555  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
08941 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented
tropical storm.  A peripheral pressure of 997 mb at 16Z on the 16th
supports at least 53 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship - 60 kt utilized in best track.

********************************************************************************

08945 05/17/1887 M= 5  1 SNBR= 246 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
08945 05/17/1887 M= 5  2 SNBR= 253 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

08950 05/17*184 786  35    0*187 787  35    0*192 788  40    0*196 789  40    0
08950 05/17*156 769  35    0*160 772  35    0*165 775  40    0*171 779  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

08955 05/18*201 789  45    0*205 790  45    0*210 790  50    0*215 791  50    0
08955 05/18*177 783  45    0*183 786  45    0*189 787  50    0*195 787  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

08960 05/19*221 791  50    0*227 791  40    0*233 790  35    0*238 782  35    0
08960 05/19*203 784  50    0*213 780  40    0*220 775  35    0*226 770  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

08965 05/20*237 771  40    0*238 759  45    0*240 748  45    0*245 738  50    0
08965 05/20*232 765  40    0*236 758  45    0*240 748  45    0*245 738  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***

08970 05/21*252 728  50    0*261 718  50    0*271 708  45    0*282 703  35    0
08975 TS 

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1.  
These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Peripheral pressure of 
1002 mb at 20Z on the 18th suggests at least 43 kt - 50 kt used in best 
track.

********************************************************************************

08976 06/11/1887 M= 4  3 SNBR= 254 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
08976 06/11*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*205 840  30    0*212 847  30    0
08976 06/12*219 853  30    0*227 859  35    0*235 865  35    0*243 869  35    0
08976 06/13*251 873  35    0*260 877  35    0*270 880  35    0*280 883  35    0
08976 06/14*290 885  35    0*300 887  35    0*310 888  30    0*320 888  30    0
08976 TS 

Moderate changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented
tropical storm.  Storm is also carried for an additional day to account for 
reasonable decay to tropical depression over land.

********************************************************************************


08980 07/20/1887 M= 9  2 SNBR= 247 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
08980 07/20/1887 M= 9  4 SNBR= 255 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                       *       ***                        *

08985 07/20*  0   0   0    0*120 582  35    0*121 594  45    0*125 621  55    0
08985 07/20*120 576  60    0*121 592  60    0*123 610  60    0*125 624  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **          ***  **

08990 07/21*127 636  60    0*129 649  70    0*132 663  75    0*134 676  75    0
08995 07/22*137 689  80    0*140 702  80    0*142 714  85    0*144 726  85    0
09000 07/23*146 738  85    0*147 750  85    0*150 765  85    0*151 774  85    0
09005 07/24*153 788  85    0*156 803  85    0*161 817  85    0*169 840  85    0
09010 07/25*179 855  85    0*189 862  85    0*203 869  85    0*215 872  85    0
09010 07/25*179 855  85    0*189 862  85    0*202 869  85    0*215 872  75    0
                                              ***                       **

09015 07/26*227 873  85    0*239 875  85    0*251 876  85    0*263 877  85    0
09015 07/26*227 873  75    0*239 875  75    0*251 876  75    0*263 877  75    0
                     **               **               **               **

09020 07/27*275 876  85    0*287 872  85    0*299 868  85    0*309 863  80    0
09020 07/27*275 876  75    0*287 872  75    0*299 868  75    0*309 863  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

09025 07/28*317 858  70    0*323 854  60    0*328 850  50    0*336 844  35    0
09025 07/28*317 858  50    0*323 854  40    0*328 850  35    0*336 844  30    0
                     **               **               **               **

09030 HR
09030 HRAFL1
        ****

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small 
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm 
number 2.  Storm intensity increased on the 20th based upon destruction
in Barbados.  The hurricane is listed in Perez (2000) as a Category 1 
hurricane for its impacts in Cuba, which is consistent with a Category 2
hurricane passing offshore of the island.  Storm intensity decreased after 
striking the Yucatan of Mexico.  No evidence for the storm to be considered 
stronger than a Category 1 hurricane in Northwest Florida, but it could be 
that it struck an unpopulated stretch and that it was more intense than 
listed here. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for 
inland winds over Florida, Alabama and Georgia.  


1887/04 - 2006 REVISION:

09390 07/20/1887 M= 9  4 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
09395 07/20*120 576  60    0*121 592  60    0*123 610  60    0*125 624  60    0*
09400 07/21*127 636  60    0*129 649  70    0*132 663  75    0*134 676  75    0*
09405 07/22*137 689  80    0*140 702  80    0*142 714  85    0*144 726  85    0*
09410 07/23*146 738  85    0*147 750  85    0*150 765  85    0*151 774  85    0*
09415 07/24*153 788  85    0*156 803  85    0*161 817  85    0*169 840  85    0*
09420 07/25*179 855  85    0*189 862  85    0*202 869  85    0*215 872  75    0*
09425 07/26*227 873  75    0*239 875  75    0*251 876  75    0*263 877  75    0*
09430 07/27*275 876  75    0*287 872  75    0*299 868  75    0*309 863  65    0*
09435 07/28*317 858  50    0*323 854  40    0*328 850  35    0*336 844  30    0*
09440 HRAFL1                                                                    
09440 HRAFL1IAL1
            ****

Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as to causing
inland hurricane conditions in Alabama based upon the existing track
and intensity in HURDAT.

1887/04 - 2011 REVISION:

09390 07/20/1887 M= 9  4 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
09395 07/20*120 576  60    0*121 592  60    0*123 610  60    0*125 624  60    0*
09400 07/21*127 636  60    0*129 649  70    0*132 663  75    0*134 676  75    0*
09405 07/22*137 689  80    0*140 702  80    0*142 714  85    0*144 726  85    0*
09410 07/23*146 738  85    0*147 750  85    0*150 765  85    0*151 774  85    0*
09415 07/24*153 788  85    0*156 803  85    0*161 817  85    0*169 840  85    0*
09420 07/25*179 855  85    0*189 862  85    0*202 869  85    0*215 872  75    0*
09425 07/26*227 873  75    0*239 875  75    0*251 876  75    0*263 877  75    0*
09430 07/27*275 876  75    0*287 872  75    0*299 868  75    0*309 863  65    0*
09435 07/28*317 858  50    0*323 854  40    0*328 850  35    0*336 844  30    0*
09440 HRAFL1IAL1

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-7/27/1887    1500Z 30.4N  86.6W   75kt  1    ---   (981mb)   AFL1,IAL1
4-7/27/1887    1500Z 30.4N  86.6W   75kt  1    ---   (978mb)   AFL1,IAL1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 75 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 981 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 978 mb - 
for a 75 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

09250 07/30/1887 M=10  3 SNBR= 248 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09250 07/30/1887 M=10  5 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

09255 07/30*  0   0   0    0* 99 501  35    0*100 511  35    0*103 522  35    0
09260 07/31*105 532  35    0*108 542  40    0*110 550  40    0*112 557  40    0
09265 08/01*113 562  40    0*115 567  40    0*117 574  40    0*121 584  45    0
09270 08/02*125 595  45    0*129 606  45    0*133 615  45    0*136 623  50    0
09275 08/03*140 632  50    0*143 640  50    0*146 648  50    0*149 656  50    0
09280 08/04*152 664  50    0*155 672  50    0*158 680  50    0*161 688  50    0
09285 08/05*164 695  50    0*167 702  45    0*170 710  45    0*174 720  45    0
09290 08/06*178 732  45    0*184 745  40    0*190 760  40    0*195 771  40    0
09295 08/07*200 785  35    0*206 799  35    0*210 810  35    0*213 827  35    0
09300 08/08*214 840  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
09305 TS    

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann 
et al. (1999), originally storm number 3.  

********************************************************************************


09095 08/15/1887 M= 8  4 SNBR= 249 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09095 08/14/1887 M=10  6 SNBR= 257 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
         **        **  *       ***                  *     *

(The 14th is new to HURDAT.)
09098 08/14*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*170 590  35    0*180 600  35    0

09100 08/15*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*227 623  35    0*230 635  40    0
09100 08/15*190 610  35    0*200 622  35    0*210 634  35    0*218 646  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

09105 08/16*233 647  40    0*236 658  45    0*238 670  50    0*240 681  50    0
09105 08/16*224 658  40    0*229 669  45    0*234 680  50    0*238 691  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

09110 08/17*242 693  55    0*244 704  60    0*246 714  65    0*249 724  70    0
09110 08/17*242 702  55    0*246 713  60    0*250 725  65    0*255 738  70    0
                ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

09115 08/18*252 733  75    0*255 741  80    0*258 750  85    0*261 759  90    0
09115 08/18*260 749  75    0*265 758  80    0*270 767  85    0*276 775  90    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

09120 08/19*264 767  90    0*268 775  95    0*272 783 100    0*274 787 100    0
09120 08/19*281 782  90    0*286 788  95    0*295 790 100    0*309 788 100    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

09125 08/20*276 790 100    0*278 792 105    0*280 794 105    0*292 796 105    0
09125 08/20*324 780 100    0*336 767 105    0*350 750 105    0*367 731 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

09130 08/21*305 791 100    0*322 780  95    0*339 761  90    0*361 738  80    0
09130 08/21*382 709 100    0*398 684  95    0*410 660  90    0*420 620  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

09135 08/22*387 701  60    0*404 669  50    0*418 635  40    0*429 590  35    0
09135 08/22*428 577  75    0*434 536  70    0E440 495  70    0E449 456  75    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

(23rd not in HURDAT previously.)
09137 08/23E460 420  70    0E476 386  70    0E490 350  70  972E506 300  70    0

09140 HR    
09140 HR NC1   
         ***

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4.  
These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Peripheral pressures of 
967 mb (07Z 20th) suggest winds of at least 88 kt from the subtropical wind-
pressure relationship - 105 kt retained as HURDAT winds.  Central pressure 
of 972 mb (18Z 23rd) suggest winds from the northern wind-pressure 
relationship of 80 kt, respectively - 70 kt chosen for best track since 
hurricane had transitioned to extratropical storm stage.

Additional observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the 
_St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper (St. Kitts, 
17.4N, 62.7W) allow for an extension back a day and moderate adjustments
to existing positions.  All observations made at 10am and 4pm. Read: date, 
station pressure (inches mercury), temperature (F), weather, and wind:
Tuesday, August 16, 1887
Meteorological Register
10 Aug 29.80 29.78 84 83 Cloudy Clear    E mod E light
11 Aug 29.77 29.78 83 83 Cloudy Cloudy   E mod E mod
12 Aug 29.78 29.78 84 83 Clear Clear     E mod E mod
13 Aug 29.79 29.79 85 82 Clear Clear     E mod E light
14 Aug 29.78 29.70 84 84 Cloudy Cloudy   ENE mod N fresh
15 Aug 29.70 29.72 81 82 Overcast Cloudy SW fresh SW fresh
16 Aug 29.80 29.80 85 82 Hazy Clear      E light E light
General Remarks
10th -  Fine bright day and clear moonlight night.
11th - 10 a.m. passing rain squalls, balance of day cloudy to fair, and 
   fine night. Last Quarter.
12th - Weather very fine and warm, and bright starry night.
13th - 120 p.m. A shower. Fine bright day and night.
14th - The weather today is very suspicious. During the night it blew in 
   gusts with light drizzly rain, and the wind went round to the NE. At 
   2 p.m. it began to get squally and gusty accompanied with short showers 
   of rain. The barometer became depressed,and went down one tenth. The 
   wind then began to blow from the N. At 6 o'clock it became quite clear 
   that a cyclone was passing to the North of this island. The wind later 
   veered very rapidly from N to NNW, then NW, with lightning in that 
   region and some distant thunder. Later in the night the wind hauled to 
   the Westward and finally settled at SW blowing fresh all the next day. 
   It is evident from the rapid changes of the wind that the stormfield 
   was not very extensive.
15th - Blowing fresh from the SW and cloudy. Towards afternoon and evening 
   it became clearer.  Night clear and starry.
16th - Clear and pleasant day, night clear and starry.

Based upon these observations, it is analyzed that the system had a closed
circulation (i.e. westerly wind component) and was nearly due north of 
the island around 09Z on the 15th.  The track is extended back to 12Z on
the 14th, with a track substantially closer to St. Kitts than analyzed
before (but still outside any gale force wind region).  However, little
can be deduced for intensity.  Thus, continuing the system with minimal 
(35 kt) tropical storm strength appears prudent.


1887/06 - 2006 REVISION:

09505 08/14/1887 M=10  6 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
09505 08/14/1887 M=10  6 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=1                     
                                                    *

09510 08/14*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*170 590  35    0*180 600  35    0*
09515 08/15*190 610  35    0*200 622  35    0*210 634  35    0*218 646  40    0*
09520 08/16*224 658  40    0*229 669  45    0*234 680  50    0*238 691  50    0*
09525 08/17*242 702  55    0*246 713  60    0*250 725  65    0*255 738  70    0*
09530 08/18*260 749  75    0*265 758  80    0*270 767  85    0*276 775  90    0*
09535 08/19*281 782  90    0*286 788  95    0*295 790 100    0*309 788 100    0*
09540 08/20*324 780 100    0*336 767 105    0*350 750 105    0*367 731 105    0*
09545 08/21*382 709 100    0*398 684  95    0*410 660  90    0*420 620  80    0*
09550 08/22*428 577  75    0*434 536  70    0E440 495  70    0E449 456  75    0*
09555 08/23E460 420  70    0E476 386  70    0E490 350  70  972E506 300  70    0*
09560 HR NC1                                                                    

As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did
cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental
U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0".

********************************************************************************

09145 08/18/1887 M=10  5 SNBR= 250 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09145 08/18/1887 M=10  7 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

09150 08/18*  0   0   0    0*169 574  35    0*172 584  50    0*177 593  65    0
09150 08/18*  0   0   0    0*180 600  35    0*188 610  35    0*196 620  35    0
                             *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09155 08/19*182 602  85    0*189 611  90    0*195 620  95    0*203 630 100    0
09155 08/19*204 632  40    0*212 645  45    0*220 660  50    0*228 675  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** *** ***

09160 08/20*212 639 105    0*220 648 105    0*227 657 105    0*239 680 105    0
09160 08/20*236 690  55    0*243 705  55    0*250 720  60    0*255 733  60    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

09165 08/21*250 710 105    0*260 737 105    0*267 753 105    0*271 761 105    0
09165 08/21*259 744  65    0*261 753  75    0*263 760  85    0*264 766  95    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

09170 08/22*273 765 105    0*275 769 105    0*279 772 105    0*284 776 105    0
09170 08/22*265 772 105    0*266 778 110    0*270 783 110    0*278 786 110    0
            *** ***          *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

09175 08/23*289 780 105    0*294 782 105    0*300 783 105    0*306 782 105    0
09175 08/23*286 787 110    0*293 786 110    0*300 785 110    0*307 784 110    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

09180 08/24*311 778 105    0*318 771 105    0*326 760 105    0*336 747 105    0
09180 08/24*314 782 110    0*318 780 110    0*323 777 110    0*333 767 110    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

09185 08/25*347 731 105    0*359 714 105    0*370 695 105    0*380 675 105    0
09185 08/25*342 756 110    0*350 744 110    0*357 733 110    0*367 713 110    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

09190 08/26*389 654 100    0*399 632  95    0*410 610  85    0*426 582  75    0
09190 08/26*379 691 105    0*390 663 105    0*400 640 100    0*420 603 100    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

09195 08/27*447 558  70    0*467 535  65    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
09195 08/27*443 560  95    0*463 514  85    0E485 460  75    0E507 397  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09200 HR

Only one major change (detailed below) from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), 
who otherwise made large, but reasonable alterations to the track shown in 
Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5.  Intensities reduced from
the 18th to the 21st, since available observations indicate that the 
system remained a tropical storm until the 21st and moderate (Category 1 
and 2) hurricane status until the 22nd.  Winds boosted on the 26th and 27th 
based upon ship reports.  Peripheral pressure of 994 mb (09Z on the 21st) 
suggests winds of at least 58 kt from the southern wind-pressure 
relationship - 75 kt chosen in best track (lowered from 105 kt).  
Peripheral pressure of 955 mb (14Z on the 22nd) suggests winds of at least
99 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt chosen for 
best track.  Peripheral pressures of 952 mb (12Z on the 26th) and 955 mb 
(17Z on the 26th) suggest winds of at least 96 kt and 93 kt, respectively, 
from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best 
track.  Peripheral pressure of 963 mb (00Z on the 27th) suggests winds of
at least 88 kt - 95 kt chosen for best track.

Additional observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the 
_St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper 
(St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W) allow for repositioning of the storm on the 
18th to the 20th.  All observations made at 10am and 4pm. Read: date, 
station pressure (inches mercury), temperature (F), weather, and wind:
Tuesday, 23 August 1887
Meteorological Register
17 Aug 29.80 29.80 84 83 Clear Clear   ENE light NE mod
18 Aug 29.75 29.72 86 85 Clear Clear   NE light  SW mod
19 Aug 29.80 29.80 85 85 Clear Clear   S light   S mod
20 Aug 29.80 29.78 84 82 Clear Cloudy  E light   ENE mod
General Remarks
17th - Bright and sunny day, and clear starry night.
18th - Today has been exceedingly hot and sultry, night bright starlight.
19th - The weather today has been very fine, and warm, sea moderately 
   smooth. Night overcast.  At 8 p.m. a sudden flash of lightning 
   followed by a low roll of distant thunder. New moon.
20th - Weather bright with sunshine throughout the day. Afternoon sky 
   lightly overcast. Night clear and starry.

These observations suggest a closest approach to St. Kitts around 18Z
on the 18th (lowest pressure and wind shift to SW) as a relatively weak
system.  Southerly winds on the 19th clearly indicate that the system
has moved to the west of the island.  Large adjustment to track 
proposed by Partagas is not too surprising given the lack of data
that Partagas could locate for the 18th through the 20th.

********************************************************************************

09205 09/01/1887 M= 6  6 SNBR= 251 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09205 09/01/1887 M= 6  8 SNBR= 259 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

09210 09/01*279 533  35    0*288 539  40    0*297 545  45    0*306 554  50    0
09210 09/01*281 537  35    0*286 544  40    0*290 550  45    0*296 559  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

09215 09/02*314 560  55    0*325 567  65    0*334 571  75    0*357 572  80    0
09215 09/02*304 570  55    0*311 578  65    0*320 585  75    0*342 587  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

09220 09/03*380 567  85    0*403 553  85    0*428 518  85    0*447 475  85    0
09220 09/03*367 578  85    0*388 564  90    0*410 540  90    0*437 497  90    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09225 09/04*465 430  85    0*482 392  75    0*500 350  65    0*519 320  60    0
09225 09/04*464 445  90  963*492 397  90    0E520 350  80    0E530 324  70    0
            *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

09230 09/05*533 296  55    0*549 269  50    0*557 230  50    0*553 181  50    0
09230 09/05E540 297  60    0E549 269  60    0E557 230  60    0E553 181  60    0
           **** ***  **     *         **     *         **     *         **

09235 09/06*552 146  50    0*554 110  50    0*559  72  50    0*  0   0   0    0
09235 09/06E552 146  55    0E554 110  50    0E559  72  50    0*  0   0   0    0
           *                *                *

09240 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 6.  Intensities increased from the 3rd to the 6th based upon
ship reports.  A possible central pressure of 963 mb (22Z on the 3rd)
suggests winds of 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 
90 kt chosen for best track.  A peripheral pressure measurement of 985 mb
(17Z on the 4th) suggests winds of at least 68 kt from the northern
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.

********************************************************************************

09245 09/11/1887 M=12  7 SNBR= 252 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
09245 09/11/1887 M=12  9 SNBR= 260 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                       *       ***                        *

09250 09/11*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*133 570  35    0*134 582  50    0
09250 09/11*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*133 570  35    0*134 582  40    0
                                                                        **

09255 09/12*134 593  70    0*135 604  75    0*136 614  80    0*137 623  80    0
09255 09/12*134 593  45    0*135 604  50    0*136 614  55    0*137 623  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

09260 09/13*138 631  80    0*139 639  85    0*140 648  85    0*141 662  85    0
09260 09/13*138 631  65    0*139 639  70    0*140 648  75    0*141 662  80    0
                     **               **               **               **

09265 09/14*142 678  85    0*144 695  85    0*145 710  85    0*147 723  85    0
09270 09/15*150 735  85    0*153 747  85    0*157 760  85    0*162 778  85    0
09275 09/16*167 796  85    0*173 815  85    0*180 830  85    0*187 841  85    0
09280 09/17*195 851  85    0*203 859  85    0*210 866  85    0*214 872  85    0
09280 09/17*195 851  85    0*203 859  85    0*210 866  85    0*214 872  75    0
                                                                        **

09285 09/18*219 877  85    0*223 883  85    0*230 890  85    0*231 893  85    0
09285 09/18*219 877  80    0*223 883  85    0*227 888  85    0*231 893  85    0
                     **                       *** ***

09290 09/19*235 898  85    0*239 903  85    0*245 910  85    0*250 917  85    0
09295 09/20*254 923  85    0*258 931  85    0*260 940  85    0*260 945  85    0
09295 09/20*254 923  85    0*258 931  85    0*260 940  85    0*261 948  85    0
                                                               *** ***

09300 09/21*260 949  85    0*260 954  85    0*260 959  85    0*260 964  85    0
09300 09/21*261 956  85    0*261 962  85    0*261 968  85    0*261 973  80  973
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **  ***

09305 09/22*259 972  80    0*257 980  75    0*255 989  65    0*252 997  35    0
09305 09/22*260 979  60    0*258 984  45    0*255 989  35    0*250 996  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **      *** ***  **

09310 HR
09310 HRATX2
      ******

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 7.  Intensities reduced from the 11th to the 13th since hurricane
conditions were not noted in the Windward Islands.  A central pressure
(16Z on the 21st) of 973 mb suggests winds of 85 kt from the Gulf of
Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt chosen for best track at
landfall.  (Winds at 18Z on the 21st are slightly weaker.)  Inland 
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 
Texas and Mexico.

1887/09 - 2011 REVISION:

09665 09/11/1887 M=12  9 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
09665 09/11/1887 M=12  9 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
                                                          *

09670 09/11*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*133 570  35    0*134 582  40    0*
09675 09/12*134 593  45    0*135 604  50    0*136 614  55    0*137 623  60    0*
09680 09/13*138 631  65    0*139 639  70    0*140 648  75    0*141 662  80    0*
09685 09/14*142 678  85    0*144 695  85    0*145 710  85    0*147 723  85    0*
09690 09/15*150 735  85    0*153 747  85    0*157 760  85    0*162 778  85    0*
09695 09/16*167 796  85    0*173 815  85    0*180 830  85    0*187 841  85    0*
09700 09/17*195 851  85    0*203 859  85    0*210 866  85    0*214 872  75    0*
09705 09/18*219 877  80    0*223 883  85    0*227 888  85    0*231 893  85    0*
09710 09/19*235 898  85    0*239 903  85    0*245 910  85    0*250 917  85    0*
09715 09/20*254 923  85    0*258 931  85    0*260 940  85    0*261 948  85    0*
09720 09/21*261 956  85    0*261 962  85    0*261 968  85    0*261 973  80  973*
09720 09/21*261 956  85    0*261 962  80    0*261 968  75    0*261 973  75  973*
                                      **               **               **

09725 09/22*260 979  60    0*258 984  45    0*255 989  35    0*250 996  30    0*
09730 HRATX2                                                                    
09730 HRATX1                                                                    
           *

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
9-9/21/1887    1700Z 26.1N  97.2W   85kt  2    ---    973mb    ATX2
9-9/21/1887    1700Z 26.1N  97.2W   75kt  1    ---    973mb    ATX1
                                    **    *                    ****

The 2003 reanalysis utilized a 973 mb central pressure at landfall at 17Z on 
the 21st in south Texas, which suggested 85 kt from the original Gulf of 
Mexico pressure-wind relationship.  The new Brown et al. (2006) relationship 
suggests 86 kt from the south of 25N equation and 81 kt from the north of 25N 
equation (the hurricane made landfall at 26N).  Examination of the Brownsville 
and Port Isabel observations suggest an RMW of about 40 nm.  Given that 
climatology of RMW for this central pressure and latitude is 19 nm (Vickery et 
al. 2000) and that it was moving at a slow 5 kt at landfall, winds at and just 
before landfall are estimated to be 75 kt.  This changes to hurricane to a 
Category 1 impact for South Texas, downgraded from Category 2 originally.  


********************************************************************************

09315 09/14/1887 M= 5  8 SNBR= 253 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09315 09/14/1887 M= 5 10 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                      **       ***

09320 09/14*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*230 537  35    0
09325 09/15*243 541  40    0*262 547  40    0*281 550  45    0*299 552  50    0
09325 09/15*243 541  40    0*262 547  40    0*281 550  45    0*295 553  50    0
                                                               *** ***

09330 09/16*318 553  60    0*336 552  65    0*355 549  70    0*374 545  75    0
09330 09/16*308 555  55    0*325 556  60    0*340 553  65    0*354 551  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09335 09/17*393 539  80    0*413 530  85    0*432 520  85    0*450 507  85    0
09335 09/17*374 547  70    0*393 541  70    0*410 535  70    0*428 527  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09340 09/18*467 489  80    0*483 470  75    0*500 450  65    0*516 429  55    0
09340 09/18*457 514  70  983*480 498  65    0E505 480  60    0E531 445  55    0
            *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***

09345 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 8.  Intensities reduced from the 16th to the 18th since ship
observations only support category one conditions.  A possible central
pressure of 983 mb (02Z on the 18th) suggests 70 kt from the
northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt utilized in best track.

********************************************************************************

09350 10/06/1887 M= 3  9 SNBR= 254 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09350 10/06/1887 M= 4 11 SNBR= 262 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                    *          ***

09355 10/06*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*197 847  35    0*197 860  45    0
09360 10/07*197 873  50    0*197 886  45    0*198 899  40    0*198 912  40    0
09365 10/08*198 925  45    0*199 937  50    0*200 950  50    0*201 978  35    0
09365 10/08*198 925  45    0*199 937  50    0*200 950  50    0*201 963  50    0
                                                                   ***  **

(9th not in HURDAT previously.)
09367 10/09*202 976  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0

09370 TS  

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9.  Translational
speed too high at end of track.  Adjustments made to correct this required the 
addition of an extra six hourly position.

********************************************************************************


09375 10/09/1887 M= 3 10 SNBR= 255 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09375 10/08/1887 M= 2 12 SNBR= 263 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
          *         * **       ***

(8th not in HURDAT previously.)
09377 10/08*  0   0   0    0*210 741  55    0*217 743  60    0*227 745  60    0

09380 10/09*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*190 805  35    0*202 812  45    0
09380 10/09*237 748  55    0*246 749  50    0*255 750  45    0*269 751  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09385 10/10*213 822  50    0*221 834  50    0*228 850  45    0*233 861  50    0
09390 10/11*236 871  50    0*238 882  50    0*238 892  45    0*237 904  35    0
(10th and 11th removed from HURDAT.)

09395 TS    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 10.  
These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable.  A peripheral 
pressure reading of 994 mb (10Z on the 8th) suggests winds of at least 
58 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best 
track.  Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not available as the 
genesis (and possibly the decay) were not documented.

********************************************************************************

09400 10/09/1887 M=11 11 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
09400 10/09/1887 M=14 13 SNBR= 264 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                   ** **       ***                        *

09405 10/09*  0   0   0    0*191 597  35    0*192 610  45    0*193 624  55    0
09405 10/09*  0   0   0    0*191 597  35    0*192 610  40    0*193 624  45    0
                                                       **               **

09410 10/10*193 638  65    0*194 652  75    0*194 666  80    0*194 680  85    0
09410 10/10*193 638  50    0*194 652  55    0*194 666  60    0*194 680  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

09415 10/11*194 693  85    0*194 707  75    0*195 720  65    0*196 735  60    0
09415 10/11*194 697  60    0*194 711  50    0*195 727  45    0*195 743  55    0
                ***  **          ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **

09420 10/12*198 750  60    0*201 765  60    0*204 777  65    0*206 785  70    0
09420 10/12*196 760  65    0*197 774  70    0*200 787  75    0*203 798  75    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09425 10/13*208 792  75    0*210 798  80    0*212 804  80    0*214 811  85    0
09425 10/13*207 809  75    0*211 819  75    0*215 827  75    0*217 834  75    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09430 10/14*216 819  85    0*218 826  85    0*220 833  85    0*222 840  85    0
09430 10/14*220 841  70    0*222 847  65    0*225 853  65    0*226 859  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09435 10/15*224 847  85    0*226 854  75    0*228 861  70    0*231 868  70    0
09435 10/15*229 865  75    0*231 870  75    0*233 875  75    0*235 878  75    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09440 10/16*234 875  70    0*238 882  75    0*241 888  80    0*243 893  80    0
09440 10/16*237 882  75    0*239 885  75    0*241 888  75    0*243 893  75    0
            ***      **      *** ***                   **               **

09445 10/17*245 896  85    0*248 899  85    0*251 902  85    0*256 905  85    0
09445 10/17*245 896  75    0*248 899  75    0*251 902  75    0*256 905  75    0
                     **               **               **               **

09450 10/18*263 909  85    0*271 912  85    0*277 913  85    0*283 911  85    0
09450 10/18*263 909  75    0*271 912  75    0*277 913  75    0*283 911  75    0
                     **               **               **               **

09455 10/19*288 907  85    0*294 900  85    0*299 896  65    0*309 880  35    0
09455 10/19*289 907  75    0*295 900  65    0*302 891  55    0*309 880  45    0
            ***      **      ***      **      *** ***  **               **

(20th and 21st not in HURDAT previously.)
09457 10/20*315 861  35    0*322 841  30    0*330 825  30    0*344 799  30    0
09458 10/21E357 771  35    0E376 740  40    0E395 720  45    0E420 690  45    0
09459 10/22E466 652  45    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0

09460 HR
09460 HR LA1
      **

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 11. 
These track changes are found to be reasonable.  A peripheral pressure 
reading of 989 mb (12Z on the 12th) suggests winds of at least 66 kt from 
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt used in best track.  A 
peripheral pressure reading of 989 mb (on the 19th) suggests winds of at 
least 64 kt from the Gulf wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt used in best 
track.  Hurricane status east of and at landfall into Hispanola is reduced 
to tropical storm status since there is no evidence for this intensity.  
The hurricane is reduced from the standard Category 2 (85 kt) in the original
HURDAT down to Category 1 (75 kt) while in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico 
as available observation data suggests minimal hurricane status.  This is 
consistent with analysis by Perez (2000) indicating landfall as Category 1 
hurricane over Cuba.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) 
utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S.

1887/13 - 2011 REVISION:

09820 10/09/1887 M=14 13 SNBR= 265 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
09825 10/09*  0   0   0    0*191 597  35    0*192 610  40    0*193 624  45    0*
09830 10/10*193 638  50    0*194 652  55    0*194 666  60    0*194 680  60    0*
09835 10/11*194 697  60    0*194 711  50    0*195 727  45    0*195 743  55    0*
09840 10/12*196 760  65    0*197 774  70    0*200 787  75    0*203 798  75    0*
09845 10/13*207 809  75    0*211 819  75    0*215 827  75    0*217 834  75    0*
09850 10/14*220 841  70    0*222 847  65    0*225 853  65    0*226 859  70    0*
09855 10/15*229 865  75    0*231 870  75    0*233 875  75    0*235 878  75    0*
09860 10/16*237 882  75    0*239 885  75    0*241 888  75    0*243 893  75    0*
09865 10/17*245 896  75    0*248 899  75    0*251 902  75    0*256 905  75    0*
09870 10/18*263 909  75    0*271 912  75    0*277 913  75    0*283 911  75    0*
09875 10/19*289 907  75    0*295 900  65    0*302 891  55    0*309 880  45    0*
09880 10/20*315 861  35    0*322 841  30    0*330 825  30    0*344 799  30    0*
09885 10/21E357 771  35    0E376 740  40    0E395 720  45    0E420 690  45    0*
09890 10/22E466 652  45    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
09895 HR LA1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
13-10/19/1887  0200Z 29.1N  90.4W   75kt  1    ---   (981mb)   LA1
13-10/19/1887  0200Z 29.1N  90.4W   75kt  1    ---   (978mb)   LA1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 75 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 981 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 978 mb - 
for a 75 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

09465 10/10/1887 M= 3 12 SNBR= 257 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09465 10/10/1887 M= 3 14 SNBR= 265 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                      **       ***

09470 10/10*  0   0   0    0*282 390  35    0*290 400  45    0*299 405  55    0
09470 10/10*  0   0   0    0*282 390  35    0*290 400  45    0*301 402  55    0
                                                               *** ***

09475 10/11*309 410  65    0*321 414  75    0*334 417  80    0*348 416  85    0
09475 10/11*313 402  65    0*325 401  75    0*337 400  75    0*352 399  75    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  ** 

09480 10/12*364 412  85    0*381 407  85    0*400 395  75    0*412 381  35    0
09480 10/12*368 398  75    0*384 397  75    0E400 395  60    0E412 381  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **     *         **     *

09485 HR   

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm 
number 12.  A peripheral pressure reading of 989 mb (22Z on the 11th)
suggests at least 64 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
75 kt used in best track.  Peak winds reduced from the standard Category 2 
(85 kt) in the original HURDAT down to Category 1 (75 kt) on the 11th and 
12th, since evidence suggests only a minimal hurricane occurred.

********************************************************************************


09490 10/16/1887 M= 4 13 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09490 10/15/1887 M= 5 15 SNBR= 266 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **         * **       ***

(The 15th is new to HURDAT.)
09492 10/15*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*140 480  70    0*146 490  75    0

09495 10/16*  0   0   0    0*161 512  35    0*170 520  35    0*184 530  40    0
09495 10/16*153 500  80    0*161 510  85    0*170 520  90    0*184 530  90    0
            *** ***  **          ***  **               **               **

09500 10/17*197 538  45    0*209 544  45    0*220 550  50    0*229 554  50    0
09500 10/17*197 538  90    0*209 544  90    0*220 550  85    0*229 554  80    0
                     **               **               **               **

09505 10/18*237 556  50    0*244 557  50    0*253 557  50    0*264 553  50    0
09505 10/18*237 556  70    0*244 557  60    0*253 557  55    0*264 553  50    0
                     **               **               ** 

09510 10/19*276 547  45    0*290 537  40    0*304 525  35    0*317 513  25    0
09515 TS 
09515 HR
      **

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm 
from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 13.  
Additional observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the 
_St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper 
(St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W) allow for an extension back a day and an 
increase in intensity:
"Tuesday, 25 October 1887 - Royal Mail Steam Moselle arrived at 
Barbados on October 18th and a couple of days before making port 
encountered a hurricane:  Wind began at noon of 15th from ENE. At 6pm 
strong breeze. 8pm moderate gale, barometer steady. 10 pm fresh gale, 
barometer falling. Midnight, strong gale. barometer falling, wind NE.
3 a.m. wind had increased to a hurricane, barometer 29[.00], wind NNE. 
Between 3 am and 530am lost seven Boats, all Sheep Pens, and Fowl 
Coops, with all Live Stock overboard and damaged one boat, leaving 
only two small ones serviceable. Blew away Foretopsail and Foresail,
and Awning, and considerable damage was sustained around decks. At 
5:30 a.m. wind NNE, barometer 28.80 blowing a fierce hurricane, with 
furious squalls, wind North, backing West. 6 a.m. wind WSW with 
mountainous seas. 7 a.m. Ship hove to on port tack, wind and sea 
decreasing."
These observations clearly indicate hurricane intensity was achieved
by this storm.  The 975 mb peripheral pressure (around 1030 UTC on
the 6th) suggests winds of at least 84 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track.  Winds adjusted for
the 15th to the 18th, accordingly.  Complete life cycle for this 
hurricane is not known due to lack of knowledge of its genesis.

********************************************************************************

09520 10/29/1887 M= 4 14 SNBR= 259 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
09520 10/29/1887 M= 9 16 SNBR= 267 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                    * **       ***

09525 10/29*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*251 849  35    0*268 823  40    0
09525 10/29*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*265 860  35    0*272 845  40    0
                                              *** ***          *** ***

09530 10/30*284 798  35    0*298 783  35    0*310 772  40    0*321 765  40    0
09530 10/30*280 830  40    0*289 815  35    0*300 800  40    0*313 787  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

09535 10/31*330 759  40    0*339 752  40    0*346 745  40    0*353 738  40    0
09535 10/31*327 774  50    0*339 761  55    0*348 748  60    0*354 734  60  993
            *** ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  ***

09540 11/01*359 731  40    0*364 723  40    0*368 716  35    0*373 708  35    0
09540 11/01E360 720  65    0E365 703  70    0E370 690  70    0E378 678  70    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

(2nd to 6th not in HURDAT previously.)
09541 11/02E385 666  65    0E392 654  65    0E400 640  60    0E406 617  60    0
09542 11/03E411 580  60    0E415 548  60    0E420 520  60    0E440 478  60    0
09543 11/04E474 442  60    0E511 402  60    0E530 360  60    0E536 320  60    0
09544 11/05E536 277  60    0E534 231  60  990E530 190  60    0E524 154  60    0
09545 11/06E518 114  55    0E508  73  50    0E500  40  45    0E483   4  40    0

09545 TS

U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date          Time   Lat    Lon    Max   States
                                    Winds  Affected
16-10/29/1887$  1800Z  26.8   82.3    40     FL
16-10/30/1887$  0100Z  28.1   82.8    40     FL
      **        ****   ****   ****

Only one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who otherwise made 
large reasonable track alterations to that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), 
originally storm number 14.  A possible central pressure reading of 993 mb 
(17Z on the 3lst) suggests winds of 59 kt from the northern wind-pressure 
relationship - 60 kt used in best track.  A central pressure of 990 mb (08Z on 
the 5th) suggests winds of 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 
60 kt used in best track since storm had transformed to extratropical.  
Windspeeds increased from the 30th to the 1st to account for ship and coastal 
observations (from Hudgins 2000, Roth and Cobb 2001).

The major change from Partagas and Diaz is due to work by Mr. Brian Jones of 
the University of Miami, who uncovered observations from the U.S. military base 
Fort Meade east of Tampa:

Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W):
           ----- Wind ------  --- Pressure ---       Rain
Date       14Z    20Z    02Z  14Z    20Z    02Z      
10/28/1887 E      E      0    29.90  29.88  29.90    0.83"
10/29/1887 S      S      SW   29.82  29.78  29.78    0.16"
10/30/1887 NW     NW     NW   29.70  29.65  29.65
10/31/1887 NW     NW     NW   29.75  29.74  29.74

These observations suggest the point of closest approach to Fort Meade
occurred between the SW and NW wind directions, nearest to about 06Z
on the 30th.  The track is shifted to go just north of the Fort based upon
these west winds.  The minimum surface pressure value corresponds to a
sea level pressure of 1007 mb, which is supportive of just minimal tropical
storm conditions while crossing Florida already in HURDAT.

********************************************************************************

09550 11/27/1887 M= 8 15 SNBR= 260 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09550 11/27/1887 M= 8 17 SNBR= 268 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                      **       ***

09555 11/27*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*221 670  35    0*231 686  40    0
09560 11/28*238 700  40    0*242 712  45    0*245 724  50    0*247 735  55    0
09560 11/28*238 700  40    0*242 712  45    0*245 724  50    0*245 728  55    0
                                                               *** ***  

09565 11/29*246 748  60    0*236 752  70    0*230 747  75    0*232 730  80    0
09565 11/29*244 732  60    0*241 734  65    0*237 735  70    0*233 732  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09570 11/30*239 712  80    0*248 699  85    0*256 685  85    0*260 676  85    0
09570 11/30*234 726  70    0*237 718  70    0*240 713  70    0*245 704  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09575 12/01*264 667  85    0*268 659  85    0*272 653  85    0*275 648  80    0
09575 12/01*251 694  60    0*256 686  60    0*263 673  60    0*268 664  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09580 12/02*278 644  80    0*280 640  75    0*283 635  70    0*287 629  70    0
09580 12/02*274 653  55    0*279 645  55    0*285 635  55    0*291 627  55    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **      *** ***  **

09585 12/03*291 623  65    0*296 617  60    0*303 610  55    0*311 601  50    0
09585 12/03*298 619  50    0*305 610  50    0*310 603  50    0*315 595  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09590 12/04*320 588  50    0*329 575  45    0*339 565  40    0*349 555  35    0
09590 12/04*320 588  50    0*329 575  50    0*339 565  45    0*349 555  40    0
                                                       **               **

09595 HR 

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 15. 
These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Winds reduced from the 
28th until the 3rd since available observational data indicate that the
system peaked as a minimal hurricane (65 kt is chosen as peak winds), 
rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) intensity in the original 
HURDAT. Winds slightly increased on 4th due to a ship observation.

********************************************************************************

09600 12/04/1887 M= 7 16 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09600 12/04/1887 M= 7 18 SNBR= 269 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                      **       ***

09605 12/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*192 541  35    0*207 574  40    0
09605 12/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*192 541  35    0*207 574  35    0
                                                                        **

09610 12/05*221 600  40    0*235 619  50    0*248 628  50    0*261 632  55    0
09610 12/05*221 600  40    0*235 619  40    0*248 628  45    0*261 632  45    0
                                      **               **               **

09615 12/06*276 630  65    0*286 620  65    0*298 609  65    0*312 589  70    0
09615 12/06*276 630  50    0*286 620  50    0*298 609  55    0*312 589  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

09620 12/07*326 571  75    0*340 556  75    0*353 543  80    0*361 518  80    0
09620 12/07*326 571  65    0*340 556  70    0*353 543  70    0*361 518  70    0
                     **               **               **               **

09625 12/08*364 491  85    0*367 464  85    0*371 439  85    0*377 417  85    0
09625 12/08*364 491  70    0*367 464  70    0*371 439  70    0*377 417  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

09630 12/09*384 396  85    0*392 377  85    0*400 360  80    0*409 346  75    0
09630 12/09E384 396  60    0E392 377  60    0E400 360  60    0E409 346  55    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

09635 12/10*419 334  70    0*430 325  60    0*442 318  50    0*454 313  35    0
09635 12/10E419 334  50    0E430 325  45    0E442 318  40    0E454 313  35    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         

09640 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 16.  All gale
force or greater observations obtained for this system were the following:  
50 kt from the southeast veering to the northwest around 02 UTC on the 7th 
(Bark "Leocadia"), 70 kt around 17 UTC on the 7th (Steamship "Kate Fawcett"), 
40 kt from the south-southwest veering to the west-northwest on the 8th 
(Steamship "Orsino"), and 60 kt from the south veering to the northwest around 
17 UTC on the 9th (Steamship "Westergate").  Winds are thus reduced for the 
whole lifecycle of the storm since best available observations indicate that 
the system likely peaked on the 7th and 8th as a minimal hurricane (70 kt 
chosen as peak winds), rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) intensity 
originally suggested in HURDAT.

********************************************************************************

09900 12/07/1887 M= 6 17 SNBR= 262 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09900 12/07/1887 M= 6 19 SNBR= 270 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                      **       ***

09905 12/07*  0   0   0    0*125 585  35    0*127 596  35    0*129 606  40    0
09910 12/08*131 616  40    0*132 626  40    0*133 636  45    0*133 646  45    0
09915 12/09*133 657  45    0*132 668  50    0*130 680  50    0*128 695  50    0
09920 12/10*126 713  50    0*123 732  50    0*121 750  50    0*118 766  50    0
09925 12/11*115 782  50    0*113 796  50    0*110 810  50    0*109 815  45    0
09930 12/12*108 820  45    0*107 825  40    0*106 831  35    0*105 836  25    0
09935 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999), originally storm number 17.

********************************************************************************

1887 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned three additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) June 10-15, 1887:  Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical.

2) September 1-5, 1887:  At least one (possible two) gale force wind reports, 
   but unclear if system was closed circulation.

3) October 22-23, 1887:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.

4) Observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the _St. Christopher 
Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper (St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W) 
suggest the occurrence of (at least) a tropical depression that passed
south and then west of St. Kitts.  However, without additional 
information documenting tropical storm strength for this system, it will 
not be added into HURDAT. 
All observations made at 10am and 4pm. Read: date, station pressure (inches 
mercury), temperature (F), weather, and wind (The altitude of the 
observations were at approximately 30 m.  Thus the surface pressures provided
below must be corrected by 0.1" to convert to sea level pressure values.)
Tuesday, September 27,  1887
Meteorological Register
20 Sep 29.80 29.78 78 81 Cloudy Overcast  NE light E mod
21 Sep 29.80 29.75 83 84 Cloudy Cloudy    E light S light
22 Sep 29.78 29.70 82 82 Cloudy Overcast  S mod SW mod
23 Sep 29.80 29.80 85 84 Cloudy Hazy      SSW light SW light
24 Sep 29.80 29.80 86 85 Clear Clear      SW light SW light
25 Sep 29.80 29.80 86 86 Clear Clear      SW light SW light
26 Sep 29.80 29.77 85 84 Clear Clear      S light SE light
General Remarks
20th - Weather densely overcast with heavy showers of rain all day. 
   Night cloudy with passing showers. 
21st - Commences with a cloudy sky and calm sultry atmosphere. 
   Mid-day intermittent sunshine.  5 p.m. raining. Night showery with 
   sheet lightning.
22nd - Commences with squalls of wind and rain. At 1 a.m. the wind 
   became boisterous, and the squalls reached the force of a moderate 
   gale, with frequent heavy showers. Barometer at 29.68. Noon very 
   squally in South, thick and raining. Night cloudy and squally.
23rd - (No account.) 
24th - After the squally weather of the day before yesterday, the sky 
   cleared, the wind still from the southwest but light. Fine sunny 
   day. Night clear and dull. Plenty of sheet lightning.
25th - Bright and sunny day, clear and starry night.
26th - Warm and sunny day. 5 p.m. overcast and raining - clear 
   starlight night.

5) Another possible new system has been identified by Mr. Michael Chenoweth
to have struck southern Belize in October 1887.  Below are some excerpts
from the _Colonial Guardian_ newspaper of Belize:  
   "The storm which swept last week [October 15-16, 1887] over the town, 
has caused great havock in the country, blowing down trees, strewing the 
truck-paths with them and rendering travelling impossible.  We have been 
credibly informed that many of the banana plantations of the Southern 
District have been levelled with the ground; so that for three months 
these plantations will produce little or nothing."
   In the same day's issue, they identify the "City of Dallas" as sailing 
from New Orleans and being a day late in arriving in Belize (with the new 
Colonial Secretary) "due to a severe storm shortly after leaving", but the 
exact date is not given. It arrived in Belize Wednesday afternoon, 
October 19.
The difficulty in ascribing this destruction to a new tropical cyclone
is that storm 13 was occurring just 300-400 nmi to the north while 
passing between Cuba and the Yucatan of Mexico.  While it is not impossible
for two tropical systems to be that physically close to one another, it
is an unlikely event.  It is also a possibility that the destruction 
described here is due to storm 13, which may need a large alteration in
its track.  At this point, it is recommended that this system be retained
as a possible new system (or storm 13 in need of revision of track) until
more information can be obtained to clarify the situation.

********************************************************************************


09685 06/16/1888 M= 3  1 SNBR= 263 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
09685 06/16/1888 M= 3  1 SNBR= 271 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***                        *

09690 06/16*275 932  35    0*277 937  55    0*280 943  70    0*282 948  85    0
09690 06/16*275 932  35    0*277 937  45    0*280 943  55    0*282 948  65    0
                                      **               **               **

09695 06/17*284 953  85    0*287 957  80    0*290 960  70    0*294 963  65    0
09695 06/17*284 953  70    0*287 957  70    0*290 960  50    0*294 963  40    0
                     **               **               **               **

09700 06/18*299 965  55    0*304 967  50    0*310 968  45    0*313 966  35    0
09700 06/18*299 965  35    0*304 967  30    0*310 968  30    0*313 966  25    0
                     **               **               **               **

09705 HR
09705 HRBTX1
        ****

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds reduced moderately for the whole 
lifecycle of the storm as available observation evidence suggests that this
system reached minimal (70 kt) hurricane status, rather than the standard
Category 2 (85 kt) utilized in the original HURDAT.  Inland decay model of 
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) used for inland winds over Texas.

1888/01 - 2011 REVISION:

10150 06/16/1888 M= 3  1 SNBR= 272 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
10155 06/16*275 932  35    0*277 937  45    0*280 943  55    0*282 948  65    0*
10160 06/17*284 953  70    0*287 957  70    0*290 960  50    0*294 963  40    0*
10165 06/18*299 965  35    0*304 967  30    0*310 968  30    0*313 966  25    0*
10170 HRBTX1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-6/17/1888    0600Z 28.7N  95.7W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   BTX1  
1-6/17/1888    0600Z 28.7N  95.7W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   BTX1  
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

09710 07/04/1888 M= 3  2 SNBR= 264 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
09710 07/04/1888 M= 3  2 SNBR= 272 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

09715 07/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*260 944  35    0*264 948  40    0
09720 07/05*270 951  50    0*276 953  50    0*283 955  50    0*291 956  45    0
09725 07/06*300 956  40    0*309 955  35    0*320 954  35    0*  0   0   0    0
09725 07/06*300 956  40    0*309 955  35    0*320 954  30    0*  0   0   0    0
                                                       **

09730 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas.

********************************************************************************

09735 08/14/1888 M=11  3 SNBR= 265 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
09735 08/14/1888 M=11  3 SNBR= 273 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***                        *

09740 08/14*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*213 713  35    0*218 724  40    0
09740 08/14*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*230 710  35    0*233 721  40    0
                                              *** ***          *** ***

09745 08/15*223 734  50    0*228 745  60    0*233 755  70    0*238 765  80    0
09745 08/15*238 734  50    0*241 745  60    0*243 755  70    0*246 765  80    0
            ***              ***              ***              ***

09750 08/16*243 774  90    0*248 783  95    0*253 793  95    0*257 806  90    0
09750 08/16*248 774  90    0*251 782 100    0*253 790 110    0*257 799 110    0
            ***              *** *** ***          *** ***          *** ***    

09755 08/17*262 822  85    0*266 838  90    0*269 853  90    0*271 867  95    0
09755 08/17*262 809  85    0*266 820  70    0*269 833  80    0*271 847  90    0
                ***              ***  **          ***  **          ***  **

09760 08/18*271 880  95    0*272 891  95    0*273 899  95    0*276 904  95    0
09760 08/18*271 862  95    0*272 876  95    0*273 886  95    0*276 894  95    0
                ***              ***              ***              ***

09765 08/19*279 907  95    0*283 910  95    0*288 913  95    0*293 916  90    0
09765 08/19*279 900  95    0*283 904  95    0*288 906  95    0*293 908  85    0
                ***              ***              ***              ***  **

09770 08/20*299 918  80    0*307 920  70    0*318 921  65    0*332 916  60    0
09770 08/20*299 909  75    0*307 910  70    0*318 910  65    0*332 908  60    0
                ***  **          ***              ***              ***

09775 08/21*348 901  55    0*365 878  50    0*380 850  45    0*393 813  45    0
09780 08/22*406 765  40    0*419 718  40    0*432 681  35    0*447 653  35    0
09780 08/22*406 765  40    0*419 718  40    0E432 681  50    0E447 653  50    0
                                             *         **     *         **

09785 08/23*462 628  35    0*477 605  35    0*492 590  35    0*506 571  35    0
09785 08/23E462 628  50    0E477 605  50    0E492 590  45    0E506 571  45    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

09790 08/24*518 558  35    0*530 550  35    0*540 540  35    0*552 530  35    0
09790 08/24E518 558  40    0E530 550  40    0E540 540  35    0E552 530  35    0
           *         **     *         **     *                *

09795 HR    
09795 HRCFL3BFL1 LA2    
      ********** ***

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon   Max  Saffir- Central   States
                                  Winds Simpson Pressure  Affected
3-8/16/1888$   1700Z 25.6N  80.4W  100kt  3     (953mb)   CFL3,BFL1
3-8/16/1888$   1900Z 25.8N  80.1W  110kt  3     (945mb)   CFL3,BFL1
               ****  ****   ****   ***           ***

3-8/19/1888    2100Z 29.6N  91.7W   95kt  2     (964mb)   LA2


Only one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made otherwise made 
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A 
peripheral pressure of 994 mb (around 21Z on the 20th) suggests winds of at 
least 56 kt from the wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt at 18Z and 55 kt at 
00Z are chosen for best track since reading was for inland station.  A 
peripheral pressure reading of 992 mb (around 12Z on the 22nd) suggests at 
least 60 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for
best track since the storm had likely transitioned to extratropical
status.  Winds increased while extratropical from the 22nd to the 24th
to account for wind and peripheral pressure data.  A value of 14 foot
storm tide for Miami, Florida is reported in Barnes (1998a) - supporting
(at least) a high end Category 3 intensity at landfall.

The major change from Partagas and Diaz is due to work by Mr. Brian Jones of 
the University of Miami, who uncovered observations from the U.S. military base 
Fort Meade east of Tampa:

Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W):
           ----- Wind ------  --- Pressure ---       Rain
Date       14Z    20Z    02Z  14Z    20Z    02Z      
8/16/1888  NE     NE     NE   29.85  29.80  29.52    0.68"
8/17/1888  SE     SE     SE   29.50  29.88  29.65    0.50"
8/18/1888  E      E      0    29.88  29.90  29.90    0.13"

These observations suggest the point of closest approach to Fort Meade
occurred between the NE and SE wind directions, nearest to about 06Z
on the 17th.  This is an impact in Florida about 6 hours later than
estimated in the Partagas and Diaz analysis.  The track is adjusted
accordingly on the 16th through the 18th.  The minimum surface pressure value 
corresponds to a sea level pressure of 1002 mb, though the hurricane center
likely passed a substantial distance to the south of the fort.

*******************************************************************************

1888/03 - 2009 REVISION:

10200 08/14/1888 M=11  3 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
10205 08/14*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*230 710  35    0*233 721  40    0*
10210 08/15*238 734  50    0*241 745  60    0*243 755  70    0*246 765  80    0*
10215 08/16*248 774  90    0*251 782 100    0*253 790 110    0*257 799 110    0*
10220 08/17*262 809  85    0*266 820  70    0*269 833  80    0*271 847  90    0*
10225 08/18*271 862  95    0*272 876  95    0*273 886  95    0*276 894  95    0*
10230 08/19*279 900  95    0*283 904  95    0*288 906  95    0*293 908  85    0*
10235 08/20*299 909  75    0*307 910  70    0*318 910  65    0*332 908  60    0*
10240 08/21*348 901  55    0*365 878  50    0*380 850  45    0*393 813  45    0*
10245 08/22*406 765  40    0*419 718  40    0E432 681  50    0E447 653  50    0*
10250 08/23E462 628  50    0E477 605  50    0E492 590  45    0E506 571  45    0*
10255 08/24E518 558  40    0E530 550  40    0E540 540  35    0E552 530  35    0*
10260 HRCFL3BFL1 LA2   
10260 HRCFL3BFL1 LA2IMS1   
                    ****

The 12Z position on 8/20 (well inland over Mississippi) had a wind of 65 kt.  Given 
this it would make sense to code for an inland effect over Mississippi (i.e. IMS1), 
which was unintentionally not counted as such previously. 

1888/03 - 2011 REVISION:

10200 08/14/1888 M=11  3 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
10205 08/14*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*230 710  35    0*233 721  40    0*
10210 08/15*238 734  50    0*241 745  60    0*243 755  70    0*246 765  80    0*
10215 08/16*248 774  90    0*251 782 100    0*253 790 110    0*257 799 110    0*
10220 08/17*262 809  85    0*266 820  70    0*269 833  80    0*271 847  90    0*
10225 08/18*271 862  95    0*272 876  95    0*273 886  95    0*276 894  95    0*
10230 08/19*279 900  95    0*283 904  95    0*288 906  95    0*293 908  85    0*
10235 08/20*299 909  75    0*307 910  70    0*318 910  65    0*332 908  60    0*
10240 08/21*348 901  55    0*365 878  50    0*380 850  45    0*393 813  45    0*
10245 08/22*406 765  40    0*419 718  40    0E432 681  50    0E447 653  50    0*
10250 08/23E462 628  50    0E477 605  50    0E492 590  45    0E506 571  45    0*
10255 08/24E518 558  40    0E530 550  40    0E540 540  35    0E552 530  35    0*
10260 HRCFL3BFL1 LA2                                                            

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
3-8/16/1888    1900Z 25.8N  80.1W  110kt  3    ---   (945mb)   CFL3,BFL1
3-8/19/1888    1600Z 29.1N  90.7W   95kt  2    ---   (964mb)   LA2
3-8/19/1888    1600Z 29.1N  90.7W   95kt  2    ---   (960mb)   LA2
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 95 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 964 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 960 mb - 
for a 95 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************


09800 08/31/1888 M= 9  4 SNBR= 266 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
09800 08/31/1888 M= 9  4 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

09805 08/31*193 603  35    0*195 613  40    0*197 623  40    0*201 637  45    0
09805 08/31*193 603  60    0*195 613  65    0*197 623  70    0*201 637  70    0
                     **               **               **               **

09810 09/01*205 649  50    0*208 661  55    0*210 671  60    0*211 679  60    0
09810 09/01*205 649  75    0*208 661  75    0*210 671  80    0*211 679  80    0
                     **               **               **               **

09815 09/02*212 685  65    0*213 692  70    0*214 701  75    0*216 713  75    0
09815 09/02*212 685  85    0*213 692  85    0*214 701  90    0*216 713  90    0
                     **               **               **               **

09820 09/03*218 724  80    0*219 736  85    0*221 748  85    0*223 759  85    0
09820 09/03*218 724  95    0*219 736 100    0*221 748 105    0*223 759 110    0
                     **              ***              ***              ***

09825 09/04*224 770  85    0*226 781  85    0*227 792  85    0*227 805  75    0
09825 09/04*225 770 110    0*227 782 110    0*229 797 110    0*230 808  90    0
            ***     ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** ***  **

09830 09/05*226 820  70    0*223 834  70    0*221 847  70    0*219 856  70    0
09830 09/05*230 819  80    0*228 828  75    0*225 837  70    0*222 849  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

09835 09/06*216 864  70    0*214 871  70    0*211 880  70    0*208 890  70    0
09835 09/06*218 861  70    0*214 871  70    0*211 880  60    0*208 890  55    0
            *** ***                                    **               **

09840 09/07*205 900  70    0*202 911  80    0*199 923  85    0*195 933  85    0
09840 09/07*205 900  50    0*202 911  60    0*199 923  70    0*195 933  85    0
                     **               **               **          

09845 09/08*188 942  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
09845 09/08*190 943  75    0*180 952  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **

09850 HR  

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds increased on
31st and 1st based upon ship report of hurricane force winds.  Peripheral
pressure of 980 mb (17Z on the 2nd) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track.
Peripheral pressure of 972 mb (12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least
87 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt used in
best track.  Peripheral pressure of 979 mb (14Z on the 4th) suggests
at least 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship.  The pressure
readings on the 3rd and 4th along with extreme destruction in Sagua, Cuba 
leads to a best track wind estimate of 110 kt at landfall, which is
consistent with the analysis of Perez (2000) of a Category 3 hurricane
landfall in Cuba.  Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with 
modifications suggested by Perez (2000).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Yucatan of Mexico.  Track 
extended six hours on the 8th for reasonable (though quick) final decay of 
hurricane over Mexico.  Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not 
available as the genesis was not documented.  The hurricane is known as 
"El Huracan de Faquineto" for its impact in Cuba and "San Gil" for its
impact in Puerto Rico.

********************************************************************************

09855 09/06/1888 M= 8  5 SNBR= 267 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
09855 09/06/1888 M= 8  5 SNBR= 275 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

09860 09/06*  0   0   0    0*233 720  35    0*239 730  35    0*244 743  40    0
09860 09/06*  0   0   0    0*235 717  35    0*239 730  35    0*244 743  40    0
                             *** ***

09865 09/07*248 755  40    0*253 768  45    0*258 780  45    0*262 792  45    0
09870 09/08*266 803  45    0*270 814  35    0*274 824  35    0*279 829  40    0
09870 09/08*267 801  45    0*272 811  35    0*277 818  35 1002*283 824  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***     **** *** ***  

09875 09/09*285 831  45    0*292 831  50  999*301 829  35    0*312 823  35    0
09875 09/09*286 826  45    0*292 829  50  999*301 829  45    0*312 823  40    0
            *** ***              ***                   **               **

09880 09/10*325 815  35    0*339 806  35    0*350 797  35    0*359 788  35    0
09885 09/11*367 779  35    0*376 769  35    0*385 759  35    0*395 747  35    0
09885 09/11*367 779  35    0*376 769  35    0E385 759  35    0E395 747  35    0
                                             *                *

09890 09/12*406 733  35    0*418 716  35    0*430 699  35    0*442 675  35    0
09890 09/12E406 733  35    0E418 716  35    0E430 699  35    0E442 675  35    0
           *                *                *                *

09895 09/13*458 648  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
09895 09/13E458 648  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
           *

09900 TS            

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  While the storm's
center does not get completely over water, this storm apparently began 
to re-intensify while over land - as observed by the strong winds and
low pressure at Cedar Key.  However, it is quite uncertain how intense
the storm was at landfall in Southeast Florida.  Winds decreased to below 
storm strength on the 11th to the 13th since observations in Partagas and 
Diaz show no storm force winds north of Virginia.

Confirmation of the inland Florida portion of the track and intensity
was deduced by Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami, who uncovered 
observations from the U.S. military base Fort Meade east of Tampa:

Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W):
           ----- Wind ------  --- Pressure ---       Rain
Date       14Z    20Z    02Z  14Z    20Z    02Z      
9/7/1888   NE     NE     NE   29.75  29.72  29.62    0.55"
9/8/1888   S      SE     SE   29.50  29.60  29.62    1.93"

These observations match Partagas and Diaz analysis that the storm 
tracked over or very close to Fort Meade around 12Z on the 8th.  The
surface pressure minimum above corresponds to a sea level pressure of 
1002 mb, which is may very well be a central pressure reading.  
1002 mb suggests marine winds of 45 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship - 35 kt retained due to over-land position.

********************************************************************************

09905 09/23/1888 M= 5  6 SNBR= 268 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
09905 09/23/1888 M= 5  6 SNBR= 276 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

09910 09/23*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*243 810  35    0*255 802  35    0
09915 09/24*266 797  40    0*277 791  40    0*287 786  45    0*295 782  45    0
09920 09/25*301 778  45    0*307 775  50    0*317 769  50    0*335 757  50    0
09920 09/25*301 778  45    0*307 775  50    0*317 769  55    0*335 757  60    0
                                                       **               **

09925 09/26*361 739  50    0*389 719  50    0*412 702  50    0*430 689  50    0
09925 09/26*361 739  65    0*389 719  70    0*412 702  70  985*430 689  60    0
                     **               **               **  ***          **

09930 09/27*448 675  50    0*464 663  40    0*478 652  35    0*  0   0   0    0
09930 09/27E448 675  50    0E464 663  40    0E478 652  35    0*  0   0   0    0
           *                *                *

09935 TS    
09935 HR
      **                

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A central pressure of 985 mb (12Z on the
26th) suggests winds of 68 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
70 kt chosen for best track making this a minimal hurricane.  However, given
the rapid translational speed, only winds of estimated 55 kt were sustained
along the U.S. coast.

********************************************************************************

09940 10/08/1888 M= 5  7 SNBR= 269 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
09940 10/08/1888 M= 5  7 SNBR= 277 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***                        *

09945 10/08*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*217 934  35    0*223 926  45    0
09950 10/09*229 918  50    0*236 909  60    0*242 900  65    0*249 891  75    0
09955 10/10*256 882  80    0*263 872  85    0*271 860  85    0*281 846  85    0
09955 10/10*256 882  80    0*263 872  85    0*270 860  90    0*277 846  95    0
                                              ***              ***  

09960 10/11*295 829  80    0*310 811  75    0*327 793  70    0*345 775  60    0
09960 10/11*290 833  95  970*305 813  70    0*323 795  60    0*345 775  55    0
            *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **

09965 10/12*364 756  50    0*384 737  45    0*406 718  40    0*419 672  35    0
09970 HR 
09970 HRAFL2DFL1
        ********

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Landfall time from Cedar Key 
measurements in Partagas and Diaz is suggested to be slightly later than 
that originally in best track - thus positions altered slightly on the 10th 
and 11th.  A nine foot storm tide (likely also to be storm surge value
based upon tidal data - B. Jarvinen, personal communication) occurred at
Cedar Key, Florida (Partagas and Diaz 1996a).  B. Jarvinen (personal 
communication) utilized the SLOSH model with the observed storm surge and
an estimated track at landfall to the north-northeast to analyze the 
central pressure at 970 mb and RMW of 11 nmi at landfall.  A 970 mb central 
pressure suggests winds of 89 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure 
relationship.  Given an RMW substantially smaller than climatology for this 
central pressure and latitudinal position (22 nmi from Vickery et al. 
2000), winds at landfall are estimated at 95 kt - near the border of
Category 2 and 3.  This assessment is substantially stronger than the 
directly observed winds of 65 kt at Cedar Key.  However, it is strongly 
suspected that this was either an estimated wind and/or that the anemometer 
failed after recording this minimal hurricane conditions before the peak winds
occurred.  Observations at Jacksonville and destruction in Fort George 
Island, Florida indicate that the center crossed just to the east of the 
city and may have still retained minimal hurricane force as it was making 
oceanfall (Sandrik 2001).  The best track is adjusted accordingly on the
11th.

********************************************************************************

10230 11/01/1888 M= 8  8 SNBR= 270 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10230 11/01/1888 M= 8  8 SNBR= 278 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10235 11/01*  0   0   0    0*123 599  35    0*133 610  35    0*144 611  35    0
10240 11/02*155 612  35    0*166 613  35    0*175 613  40    0*184 613  40    0
10245 11/03*192 613  40    0*200 612  40    0*208 611  45    0*217 610  45    0
10250 11/04*226 607  45    0*235 602  45    0*245 597  50    0*255 588  50    0
10255 11/05*266 579  50    0*277 570  50    0*287 560  50    0*295 550  50    0
10260 11/06*306 539  50    0*315 530  50    0*323 520  50    0*331 513  50    0
10265 11/07*337 508  50    0*344 504  50    0*351 498  45    0*360 490  45    0
10270 11/08*369 482  45    0*379 472  40    0*390 462  35    0*400 452  35    0
10275 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).

********************************************************************************


10025 11/17/1888 M=16  9 SNBR= 271 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10025 11/17/1888 M=16  9 SNBR= 279 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10030 11/17*  0   0   0    0*246 560  35    0*247 567  40    0*248 575  40    0
10030 11/17*232 560  50    0*235 565  55    0*238 571  60    0*242 578  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10035 11/18*249 583  40    0*250 590  45    0*251 598  45    0*252 605  45    0
10035 11/18*246 585  60    0*249 592  60    0*251 598  60    0*252 605  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **               **

10040 11/19*253 612  50    0*254 619  50    0*255 626  55    0*257 634  55    0
10040 11/19*253 612  60    0*254 619  60    0*255 626  60    0*257 634  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

10045 11/20*258 642  60    0*261 651  60    0*263 660  60    0*265 670  65    0
10045 11/20*260 642  60    0*263 650  60    0*267 657  60    0*269 664  65    0
            ***              *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

10050 11/21*267 680  65    0*270 690  70    0*272 700  70    0*274 710  70    0
10050 11/21*271 671  65    0*275 680  70    0*277 687  70    0*281 695  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

10055 11/22*276 721  75    0*278 731  75    0*282 741  80    0*284 745  80    0
10055 11/22*284 705  75    0*288 714  75    0*293 723  80    0*296 729  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

10060 11/23*287 747  80    0*290 749  85    0*292 750  85    0*295 751  85    0
10060 11/23*298 735  80    0*301 742  85    0*305 747  85    0*310 751  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** 

10065 11/24*299 752  85    0*305 752  85    0*310 752  85    0*314 752  85    0
10065 11/24*315 755  85    0*321 758  85    0*327 757  85    0*331 755  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

10070 11/25*319 752  85    0*324 751  85    0*329 748  85    0*337 742  85    0
10070 11/25*336 752  85    0*340 750  85    0*345 747  85    0*353 742  85    0
            ***              *** ***          *** ***          *** 

10075 11/26*348 733  85    0*359 725  85    0*370 720  85    0*379 714  85    0
10075 11/26E361 736  80    0E370 730  80    0E380 723  80    0E385 719  80    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

10080 11/27*389 708  85    0*398 703  85    0*407 697  85    0*415 691  85    0
10080 11/27E393 712  80    0E400 704  80    0E407 697  80    0E415 691  80    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     *         **     *         **

10085 11/28*424 684  85    0*433 676  85    0*441 666  80    0*448 652  70    0
10085 11/28E424 684  80    0E433 676  80    0E441 666  80    0E448 652  70    0
           *         **     *         **     *                *

10090 11/29*455 635  60    0*460 617  50    0*464 600  45    0*467 587  45    0
10090 11/29E455 635  60    0E460 617  50    0E464 600  45    0E467 587  45    0
           *                *                *                *

10095 11/30*469 575  45    0*471 561  45    0*472 543  45    0*472 520  45    0
10095 11/30E469 575  45    0E471 561  45    0E472 543  45    0E472 520  45    0
           *                *                *                *

10100 12/01*472 497  40    0*472 473  50    0*472 450  55    0*472 427  55    0
10100 12/01E472 497  40    0E472 473  50    0E472 450  55    0E472 427  55    0
           *                *                *                *

10105 12/02*473 404  60    0*474 381  60    0*475 358  60    0*480 333  60    0
10105 12/02E473 404  60    0E474 381  60    0E475 358  60    0E480 333  60    0
           *                *                *                *
10110 HR    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Ship observation
on the 17th suggests stronger winds than originally in HURDAT - winds
increased from the 17th to the 19th.  Peripheral pressure of 982 mb (on the
25th) suggests winds of at least 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 85 kt retained in best track.  Peripheral pressure of
973 mb (14Z on the 26th) suggests winds of at least 80 kt - 80 kt chosen
in best track as storm likely transitioned to an extratropical storm
around 00Z on the 26th.  It is to be noted that this system had hurricane
force winds (and produced these along the U.S. coast) during its extratropical
stage on the 26th to the 28th.  Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is 
not available as the genesis was not documented.

********************************************************************************

1888 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned two additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) August 13, 1888:  One gale force report, insufficient to determine if
   system was tropical storm or waterspout.
2) September 12-13, 1888:  One gale force report, insufficient to determine if
   system was new tropical storm, was continuation of storm 5, or was an
   extratropical storm.

*********************************************************************************

10115 05/16/1889 M= 7  1 SNBR= 272 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10115 05/16/1889 M= 7  1 SNBR= 280 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10120 05/16*  0   0   0    0*215 641  35    0*217 648  40    0*219 652  40    0
10125 05/17*221 657  45    0*224 663  50    0*228 670  55    0*233 678  60    0
10125 05/17*221 657  45    0*224 663  50    0*228 670  50    0*233 678  50    0
                                                       **               **

10130 05/18*239 686  65    0*245 695  70    0*253 704  75    0*262 714  80    0
10130 05/18*239 686  50    0*245 695  50    0*253 704  50    0*262 714  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

10135 05/19*273 726  85    0*283 738  85    0*292 748  85    0*299 754  85    0
10135 05/19*273 726  50    0*283 738  50    0*292 748  55    0*299 754  55    0
                     **               **               **               **

10140 05/20*305 755  85    0*312 753  85    0*319 749  80    0*328 741  75    0
10140 05/20*305 755  55    0*312 753  60    0*319 749  65    0*328 741  70    0
                     **               **               **               **

10145 05/21*337 731  70    0*346 720  60    0*358 708  55    0*371 702  45    0
10145 05/21*337 731  70    0*346 720  60    0E358 708  55    0E371 702  45    0
                                             *                *

10150 05/22*384 698  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
10150 05/22E384 698  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
           *

10155 HR  

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Gale force and greater observations
available for this system were the following:  50 kt NNW at 38.3 N, 74.8 W
(no date - Schooner "Joseph W. Fish"), unspecific hurricane force winds
and pressure of 1002 mb on the 21st.  The writeup in the Monthly Weather 
Review indicated that the system "possessed moderate energy" from the 16th 
to 19th and that the winds for this systems "were not severe in their 
character, save on the 21st, when gales of hurricane force were reported."  
This suggests that peak intensity was reached on the 21st and that it was 
below hurricane force for the days preceding, which is consistent with 
available observations.  Thus winds are retained as is on the 21st and 
reduced to tropical storm intensity on the 18th through late on the 20th.  

********************************************************************************

10415 06/15/1889 M= 6  2 SNBR= 275 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
10415 06/15/1889 M= 6  2 SNBR= 281 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

10420 06/15*198 847  35    0*206 850  35    0*213 853  40    0*220 857  40    0
10420 06/15*198 837  35    0*206 840  45    0*213 843  55    0*220 846  65    0
                ***              ***  **          ***  **          ***  **

10425 06/16*228 859  40    0*237 859  45    0*246 858  45    0*256 855  45    0
10425 06/16*228 850  65    0*237 854  60    0*246 855  55    0*256 854  50    0
                ***  **          ***  **          ***  **          ***  **

10430 06/17*266 851  45    0*276 845  45    0*286 835  45    0*296 822  40    0
10435 06/18*307 809  35    0*317 795  40    0*327 782  40    0*337 770  45    0
10440 06/19*345 759  45    0*354 747  45    0*363 734  45    0*373 716  45    0
10445 06/20*384 694  45    0*397 668  45    0*410 640  40    0*425 612  35    0
10450 TS
10450 HR
      **

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).  However, Perez (2000) analyzed this system as reaching
minimal hurricane intensity while tracking over western Cuba.  It is listed
by Perez (2000) as a Category 1 hurricane impact in Cuba based primarily
upon wind-caused damages in Pinar del Rio.  The track and intensity are
adjusted on the 15th and 16th accordingly.

********************************************************************************

10200 08/19/1889 M= 9  3 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10200 08/19/1889 M=10  3 SNBR= 282 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                   **          ***

10205 08/19*  0   0   0    0*168 692  35    0*173 696  40    0*178 699  50    0
10210 08/20*183 703  50    0*187 706  50    0*192 709  45    0*196 712  45    0
10210 08/20*183 703  50    0*187 706  35    0*192 709  30    0*196 712  30    0
                                      **               **               **

10215 08/21*200 715  45    0*204 718  50    0*208 721  55    0*213 725  60    0
10215 08/21*200 715  35    0*204 718  50    0*208 721  55    0*213 725  60    0
                     **

10220 08/22*218 728  60    0*223 732  65    0*230 736  70    0*237 740  75    0
10220 08/22*218 728  60    0*223 732  60    0*230 736  60    0*237 740  60    0
                                      **               **               **

10225 08/23*245 744  75    0*253 748  80    0*262 752  80    0*271 755  85    0
10225 08/23*245 744  60    0*253 748  60    0*262 752  60    0*271 755  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

10230 08/24*280 757  85    0*289 757  85    0*298 755  85    0*307 751  85    0
10230 08/24*280 757  60    0*289 757  60    0*298 755  60    0*307 751  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

10235 08/25*315 745  85    0*322 739  85    0*329 734  85    0*335 730  80    0
10235 08/25*315 745  60    0*322 739  60    0*329 734  60    0*335 730  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

10240 08/26*341 726  80    0*345 723  75    0*350 720  75    0*354 718  70    0
10240 08/26*341 726  60    0*345 723  60    0*350 720  65    0*354 718  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10245 08/27*359 717  65    0*362 717  60    0*366 718  50    0*371 721  35    0
10245 08/27*359 717  70    0*362 716  70    0*366 715  70    0*371 715  70    0
                     **          ***  **          ***  **          ***  **

(28th new to HURDAT.)
10247 08/28*375 715  65    0*380 715  60    0*385 715  50    0*390 715  40    0

10250 HR   

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds reduced on 20th and 21st due
to passage of storm over Hispanola.  Available observational data indicates
that the system reached minimal (70 kt) hurricane intensity between the
26th and 28th, rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) hurricane peak
intensity originally in HURDAT.  Winds reduced throughout much of this 
system's lifetime.  Additional day added to the track on the 28th from 
ship observations (the "Red Wing") described in the Partagas and Diaz 
report. 

********************************************************************************


10255 09/01/1889 M=12  4 SNBR= 275 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10255 09/01/1889 M=12  4 SNBR= 283 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10260 09/01*119 550  35    0*124 557  40    0*130 563  40    0*135 571  45    0
10260 09/01*119 550  35    0*124 557  40    0*130 563  45    0*137 572  50    0
                                                       **      *** ***  **

10265 09/02*140 579  45    0*146 587  50    0*152 594  55    0*159 605  55    0
10265 09/02*144 582  55    0*151 593  60    0*157 603  65    0*161 613  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10270 09/03*167 615  60    0*175 626  60  999*182 635  65    0*188 644  70    0
10270 09/03*169 623  75    0*174 632  80    0*180 640  90    0*187 650  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10275 09/04*194 651  70    0*199 658  75    0*206 665  80    0*214 671  80    0
10275 09/04*194 660  90    0*199 668  90    0*205 675  90    0*211 681  90    0
                ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10280 09/05*223 677  85    0*233 681  85    0*243 684  85    0*254 685  85    0
10280 09/05*217 685  90    0*224 687  90    0*233 687  90    0*247 685  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **

10285 09/06*265 686  85    0*277 687  85    0*287 687  85    0*296 687  85    0
10285 09/06*258 679  90    0*270 669  90    0*283 663  90    0*292 663  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10290 09/07*304 687  85    0*310 687  85    0*316 687  85    0*321 687  85    0
10290 09/07*299 664  90    0*309 665  90    0*320 670  90    0*326 674  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10295 09/08*326 688  85    0*331 689  85    0*336 690  85    0*341 692  85    0
10295 09/08*331 677  90    0*335 680  90    0*340 683  90    0*343 685  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10300 09/09*346 694  85    0*350 695  85    0*355 697  85    0*359 699  85    0
10300 09/09*347 688  90    0*351 692  90    0*355 695  90    0*360 698  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **

10305 09/10*363 701  85    0*366 702  80    0*370 704  80    0*374 707  75    0
10305 09/10*363 700  85    0*366 702  80    0*370 704  80    0*374 707  75    0
                ***

10310 09/11*377 711  70    0*380 716  70    0*383 721  65    0*384 725  60    0
10315 09/12*384 729  55    0*381 734  45    0*378 738  40    0*366 745  35    0
10315 09/12*384 729  55    0*381 734  45    0*377 739  40    0*370 745  35    0
                                              *** ***          ***

10320 HR  

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  981 mb peripheral 
pressure (around 12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least 76 kt from the 
southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track.  (999 mb at 
06Z on the 3rd formerly in HURDAT is not correct.  A 995 mb peripheral 
pressure was observed at 07Z.)  Slight adjustment in last positions of 
the system to allow for more realistic translational velocity.  The hurricane 
is known as "San Martin de Hinojosa" for its impacts in Puerto Rico.

********************************************************************************

10325 09/02/1889 M=10  5 SNBR= 276 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10325 09/02/1889 M=10  5 SNBR= 284 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10330 09/02*159 429  35    0*162 438  35    0*166 446  40    0*169 454  45    0
10330 09/02*159 429  35    0*162 438  35    0*166 446  40    0*169 454  40    0
                                                                        **

10335 09/03*173 462  45    0*178 471  50    0*185 482  55    0*194 495  60    0
10335 09/03*173 465  45    0*177 479  45    0*180 490  50    0*183 504  50    0
                ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10340 09/04*205 512  65    0*216 528  70    0*225 540  70    0*232 549  75    0
10340 09/04*187 519  50    0*193 531  50    0*200 543  50    0*205 550  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10345 09/05*239 555  80    0*246 561  80    0*252 565  85    0*257 570  85    0
10345 09/05*212 556  50    0*218 561  50    0*225 565  50    0*237 572  50    0
            *** ***  **      ***      **      ***      **      *** ***  **

10350 09/06*262 572  85    0*267 573  85    0*273 572  85    0*283 568  85    0
10350 09/06*246 576  50    0*254 578  50    0*263 580  50    0*275 579  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10355 09/07*297 561  85    0*311 551  85    0*320 540  85    0*328 525  85    0
10355 09/07*291 573  55    0*303 563  60    0*313 553  65    0*321 541  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10360 09/08*333 510  85    0*338 494  85    0*340 480  85    0*342 468  85    0
10360 09/08*329 524  70    0*336 507  70    0*340 490  70    0*341 477  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **

10365 09/09*343 458  85    0*344 448  85    0*345 436  85    0*346 421  85    0
10365 09/09*342 463  70    0*343 448  70    0*345 430  70    0*345 411  70    0
            *** ***  **      ***      **          ***  **      *** ***  **

10370 09/10*348 403  85    0*349 382  80    0*350 360  75    0*355 336  70    0
10370 09/10*346 390  70    0*348 371  70    0*353 350  70    0*358 329  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

10375 09/11*366 309  65    0*382 281  60    0*390 270  50    0*407 245  40    0
10375 09/11*366 309  65    0*377 290  60    0*390 270  50    0*407 245  40    0
                             *** ***

10380 HR   

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Evidence for this
storm does not support Category 2 intensity (and only marginally supports
Category 1 intensity from the 8th to the 10th); winds are reduced for much 
of the duration of this storm.
 
********************************************************************************

10385 09/11/1889 M=16  6 SNBR= 277 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
10385 09/12/1889 M=15  6 SNBR= 285 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
         **        **          ***                        *

10390 09/11*155 585  35    0*155 594  35    0*155 604  40    0*155 612  40    0
(11th deleted from HURDAT.)

10395 09/12*155 621  45    0*156 631  50    0*156 641  55    0*156 652  55    0
10395 09/12*157 595  35    0*157 607  35    0*157 620  40    0*156 633  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **          ***  **

10400 09/13*157 664  60    0*157 676  65    0*158 688  70    0*159 701  75    0
10400 09/13*156 645  45    0*156 659  45    0*157 675  50    0*157 688  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10405 09/14*160 714  80    0*161 728  80    0*162 740  85    0*163 751  85    0
10405 09/14*157 705  50    0*159 721  50    0*160 733  50    0*162 742  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10410 09/15*165 763  85    0*167 774  85    0*169 787  85    0*170 798  85    0
10410 09/15*163 757  50    0*164 766  50    0*167 777  50    0*171 790  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10415 09/16*171 809  85    0*173 821  85    0*174 830  85    0*175 842  85    0
10415 09/16*174 797  50    0*177 807  50    0*180 815  55    0*185 827  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10420 09/17*177 851  85    0*178 860  85    0*179 870  85    0*179 878  85    0
10420 09/17*188 836  65    0*191 846  75    0*193 855  85    0*194 865  95    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  **

10425 09/18*180 886  80    0*180 894  70    0*181 902  60    0*184 913  60    0
10425 09/18*195 877  90    0*195 886  75    0*195 895  65    0*195 903  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

10430 09/19*189 921  60    0*195 926  65    0*202 929  70    0*209 931  75    0
10430 09/19*196 913  70    0*198 923  85    0*202 929  85    0*209 931  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***                   **               **

10435 09/20*213 931  80    0*217 931  85    0*222 931  85    0*226 930  85    0
10435 09/20*213 931  85    0*217 931  85    0*222 931  85    0*226 930  85    0
                     **

10440 09/21*230 930  85    0*235 930  85    0*241 929  85    0*247 928  85    0
10445 09/22*252 927  85    0*261 924  85    0*270 920  85    0*279 914  85    0
10445 09/22*252 927  85    0*261 924  85    0*270 920  80    0*279 914  75    0
                                                       **               **

10450 09/23*286 906  85    0*293 894  85    0*301 880  85    0*313 862  80    0
10450 09/23*286 906  70    0*293 894  65    0*301 880  60    0*313 862  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

10455 09/24*328 839  70    0*343 816  60    0*357 795  50    0*365 779  45    0
10455 09/24*328 839  45    0*343 816  45    0E357 795  40    0E365 779  40    0
                     **               **     *         **     *         **

10460 09/25*371 767  40    0*377 754  40    0*386 738  35    0*403 717  35    0
10465 09/26*428 691  35    0*459 662  35    0*495 629  35    0*  0   0   0    0
10465 09/26E428 691  35    0E459 662  35    0E495 629  35    0*  0   0   0    0
           *                *                *

10470 HR      
10470 HR LA1     
         ***

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large 
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track
changes are found to be reasonable.  Available observational evidence
indicates that the system did not reach hurricane intensity until the 
17th - intensities reduced accordingly.  Intensities increased on the 
17th and 18th to account for great damage that occurred in the Yucatan
of Mexico.  Observations indicate that the hurricane weakened to a tropical 
storm by landfall in Florida, but may have still been a minimal hurricane 
while passing briefly over coastal Louisiana.  It is to be noted that the 
Cuban meteorologists (Father Benito Vines) believed that this system was 
actually two separate tropical cyclones.

1889/06 - 2011 REVISION:

10855 09/12/1889 M=15  6 SNBR= 286 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
10860 09/12*157 595  35    0*157 607  35    0*157 620  40    0*156 633  40    0*
10865 09/13*156 645  45    0*156 659  45    0*157 675  50    0*157 688  50    0*
10870 09/14*157 705  50    0*159 721  50    0*160 733  50    0*162 742  50    0*
10875 09/15*163 757  50    0*164 766  50    0*167 777  50    0*171 790  50    0*
10880 09/16*174 797  50    0*177 807  50    0*180 815  55    0*185 827  60    0*
10885 09/17*188 836  65    0*191 846  75    0*193 855  85    0*194 865  95    0*
10890 09/18*195 877  90    0*195 886  75    0*195 895  65    0*195 903  60    0*
10895 09/19*196 913  70    0*198 923  85    0*202 929  85    0*209 931  85    0*
10900 09/20*213 931  85    0*217 931  85    0*222 931  85    0*226 930  85    0*
10905 09/21*230 930  85    0*235 930  85    0*241 929  85    0*247 928  85    0*
10910 09/22*252 927  85    0*261 924  85    0*270 920  80    0*279 914  75    0*
10915 09/23*286 906  70    0*293 894  65    0*301 880  60    0*313 862  50    0*
10920 09/24*328 839  45    0*343 816  45    0*357 795  40    0*365 779  40    0*
10925 09/25*371 767  40    0*377 754  40    0*386 738  35    0*403 717  35    0*
10930 09/26E428 691  35    0E459 662  35    0E495 629  35    0*  0   0   0    0*
10935 HR LA1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
6-9/23/1889    0400Z 29.1N  89.8W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   LA1
6-9/23/1889    0400Z 29.1N  89.8W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   LA1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

10725 09/12/1889 M= 8  7 SNBR= 278 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10725 09/12/1889 M= 8  7 SNBR= 286 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10730 09/12*  0   0   0    0*152 257  35    0*157 267  35    0*162 279  35    0
10735 09/13*168 290  35    0*175 301  35    0*184 312  40    0*194 323  40    0
10740 09/14*205 333  40    0*218 342  40    0*232 350  45    0*249 355  45    0
10745 09/15*270 359  45    0*291 362  45    0*306 366  45    0*317 371  50    0
10750 09/16*326 377  50    0*333 383  50    0*340 390  50    0*345 399  50    0
10755 09/17*350 410  50    0*355 423  50    0*361 435  50    0*370 457  50    0
10760 09/18*375 475  50    0*383 488  45    0*397 494  45    0*404 494  45    0
10765 09/19*414 493  45    0*423 491  40    0*431 489  35    0*440 485  35    0
10770 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).

********************************************************************************

10525 09/29/1889 M= 8  8 SNBR= 279 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10525 09/29/1889 M= 8  8 SNBR= 287 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10530 09/29*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*113 520  35    0*118 536  35    0
10535 09/30*123 551  35    0*127 564  40    0*132 575  40    0*137 585  40    0
10540 10/01*142 594  40    0*146 603  45    0*151 610  45    0*156 617  45    0
10545 10/02*162 623  45    0*169 629  50    0*179 637  50    0*188 643  50    0
10550 10/03*200 650  50    0*214 657  50    0*229 665  50    0*243 669  50    0
10555 10/04*258 672  50    0*273 674  45    0*288 674  45    0*303 670  40    0
10555 10/04*258 672  50    0*273 674  50    0*288 674  55    0*303 670  55    0
                                      **               **               **

10560 10/05*318 660  40    0*332 650  40    0*347 644  35    0*364 630  35    0
10560 10/05*318 660  60    0*332 650  60    0*347 644  55    0*364 630  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

10565 10/06*378 612  35    0*391 594  35    0*404 575  35    0*  0   0   0    0
10565 10/06*378 612  45    0*391 594  40    0*404 575  35    0*  0   0   0    0
                     **               **

10570 TS         

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds increased on the 4th to the 6th
based upon ship observations, though the peak intensity was kept at just
below hurricane force.

********************************************************************************


10575 10/04/1889 M= 7  9 SNBR= 280 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
10575 10/05/1889 M= 7  9 SNBR= 288 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **                    ***

10580 10/04*  0   0   0    0*208 821  35    0*216 820  45    0*228 816  50    0
(4th removed in revised HURDAT.)

10585 10/05*237 813  45    0*248 810  50    0*258 806  50    0*270 801  45    0
10585 10/05*  0   0   0    0*200 825  30    0*215 820  30    0*234 815  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10590 10/06*288 795  45    0*303 789  45    0*317 780  50    0*340 757  50    0
10590 10/06*250 810  40    0*271 802  40    0*300 788  45    0*330 765  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

10595 10/07*361 730  50    0*383 703  50    0*403 680  50    0*425 659  50    0
10600 10/08*445 640  50    0*464 623  45    0*480 610  40    0*496 607  40    0
10600 10/08E445 640  50    0E464 623  45    0E480 610  40    0E496 607  40    0
           *                *                *                *

10605 10/09*510 602  40    0*522 596  40    0*533 590  40    0*544 588  40    0
10605 10/09E510 602  40    0E522 596  40    0E533 590  40    0E544 588  40    0
           *                *                *                *

10610 10/10*555 584  40    0*565 580  40    0*574 575  40    0*585 570  40    0
10610 10/10E555 584  40    0E565 580  40    0E574 575  40    0E585 570  40    0
           *                *                *                *

(00 and 06Z on the 11th added into HURDAT.)
10612 10/11E605 560  35    0E630 553  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **

10615 TS   

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large reasonable 
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Partagas and
Diaz recommended beginning the storm on the 5th south of Cuba (rather than
the 4th) based upon available observation data indicating formation of
closed circulation on the 5th.  R. Perez (2001, personal communication) 
analyzed this system as of tropical depression intensity crossing Cuba based 
upon observations from the Cuban weather observing network.  

********************************************************************************

1889 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned two additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) June 24-25, 1889:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) October 14-16, 1889:  Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but
   likely was an extratropical storm.

********************************************************************************

10616 05/27/1890 M= 3  1 SNBR= 289 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10617 05/27*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*205 830  30    0*211 833  30    0
10618 05/28*217 836  30    0*223 838  30    0*230 840  35    0*235 842  40    0
10619 05/29*240 843  45    0*244 844  50    0*248 846  50    0*252 848  50    0
10619 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) are introduced for this 
newly documented storm.  Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not 
available as the decay was not documented.

********************************************************************************


10616 08/18/1890 M=11  2 SNBR= 290 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
10617 08/18*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*140 620  35    0*142 628  35    0
10618 08/19*144 636  40    0*145 644  40    0*147 655  40    0*148 663  40    0
10619 08/20*150 672  40    0*151 681  40    0*153 690  40    0*154 700  40    0
10620 08/21*155 709  40    0*156 717  40    0*157 725  40    0*159 736  40    0
10621 08/22*160 745  40    0*162 755  40    0*165 765  40    0*167 773  40    0
10622 08/23*169 782  45    0*172 790  45    0*175 800  45    0*178 809  45    0
10623 08/24*182 817  50    0*186 825  50    0*190 833  50    0*196 841  50    0
10624 08/25*202 849  50    0*209 858  50    0*215 867  50    0*221 876  50    0
10625 08/26*227 884  50    0*232 892  50    0*240 900  50    0*248 905  50    0
10626 08/27*258 908  50    0*268 909  50    0*280 910  50    0*295 908  40    0
10627 08/28*315 905  35    0*340 900  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
10628 TS

One major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented 
storm.  The track of the tropical storm was placed closer to Pt. Eads,
Louisiana, at landfall in order to be more consistent with tropical storm 
force winds that occurred there.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria 
(1995) utilized for inland winds over Louisiana and Mississippi.  Track 
extended twelve hours on the 28th for reasonable decay of the storm.

********************************************************************************

10620 08/26/1890 M= 9  1 SNBR= 281 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10620 08/26/1890 M= 9  3 SNBR= 291 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

10625 08/26*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*166 543  85    0*173 557  85    0
10625 08/26*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*166 543  85    0*173 557  90    0
                                                                        **

10630 08/27*180 570  85    0*186 583  85    0*193 596  85    0*200 609  85    0
10630 08/27*180 570  95    0*186 583 100    0*193 596 105    0*200 609 105    0
                     **              ***              ***              ***

10635 08/28*207 621  85    0*213 633  85    0*220 645  85    0*228 657  85    0
10635 08/28*207 621 105    0*213 633 105    0*220 645 105    0*228 657 105    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

10640 08/29*239 669  85    0*250 680  85    0*261 691  85    0*272 697  85    0
10640 08/29*239 669 100    0*250 680  95    0*261 691  90    0*272 697  85    0
                    ***               **               **

10645 08/30*283 698  85    0*294 696  85    0*305 692  85    0*317 684  85    0
10650 08/31*329 671  85    0*345 654  85    0*364 634  85    0*388 610  85    0
10655 09/01*416 584  85    0*445 554  85    0*472 522  85    0*497 485  85    0
10655 09/01*416 584  85    0*445 554  80    0*472 522  70    0*497 485  60    0
                                      **               **               **

10660 09/02*522 446  85    0*546 406  85    0*570 370  85    0*587 338  85    0
10660 09/02E522 446  50    0E546 406  50    0E570 370  50    0E587 338  50    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **
    
10665 09/03*603 308  85    0*615 281  85    0*625 256  85    0*  0   0   0    0
10665 09/03E603 308  50    0E615 281  45    0E625 256  45    0*  0   0   0    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **

10670 HR 

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1.  A peripheral 
pressure of 965 mb (at 07Z on the 28th) suggests winds of at least 95 kt from 
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt used in best track.  Winds 
from the 26th to the 29th adjusted upward accordingly.  Winds from the 1st to 
the 3rd lowered based upon ship observations of a hurricane transitioning to
a (weaker) extratropical storm.  Complete lifecycle of this hurricane is 
not available as the genesis was not documented.

********************************************************************************

10671 10/31/1890 M= 2  4 SNBR= 292 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10672 10/31*143 803  80    0*144 813  80    0*145 823  80    0*147 833  80    0
10673 11/01*149 844  55    0*151 855  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
10674 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented 
hurricane.  Track extended twelve hours on the 1st for reasonable decay of 
this hurricane over Central America.  No dissipating tropical depression
intensity is indicated for a six hour location estimate because of rapid
dissipation over mountainous terrain.

********************************************************************************

1890 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned three additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) October 2, 1890:  One report of gale force winds, insufficient to determine
   if system was a tropical storm.
2) October 21-26, 1890:  Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but
   likely was an extratropical storm.
3) October 26-28, 1890:  Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but
   likely was an extratropical storm.

********************************************************************************

10675 07/03/1891 M= 6  1 SNBR= 282 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
10675 07/03/1891 M= 6  1 SNBR= 293 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***                        *

10680 07/03*  0   0   0    0*217 930  35    0*220 932  45    0*224 935  55    0
10685 07/04*229 939  65    0*234 942  75    0*240 945  80    0*247 948  85    0
10685 07/04*229 939  65    0*234 942  75    0*240 945  80    0*247 948  80    0
                                                                        **

10690 07/05*254 951  85    0*262 954  85    0*271 956  85    0*281 956  85    0
10690 07/05*254 951  80    0*262 954  80    0*271 956  80    0*281 956  80    0
                     **               **               **               **

10695 07/06*292 954  80    0*303 951  70    0*312 947  60    0*319 943  50    0
10695 07/06*292 954  70    0*303 951  60    0*312 947  55    0*319 943  50    0
                     **               **               **

10700 07/07*325 938  45    0*331 931  40    0*337 923  40    0*342 911  35    0
10700 07/07*325 938  45    0*331 931  40    0*337 923  35    0*342 911  30    0
                                                       **               **

10705 07/08*350 881  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
10705 07/08*346 897  25    0*350 881  25    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10710 HR
10710 HRBTX1CTX1
        ********

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A peripheral pressure of 990 mb (at
0230Z on the 6th) suggests winds of at least 62 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track, which reduces
the peak intensity originally in HURDAT slightly.  Decay to tropical 
depression stage over land included before dissipation.  Additional
six-hourly position added at end of track to allow for reasonable
translational speed of system.

1891/01 - 2011 REVISION:

11250 07/03/1891 M= 6  1 SNBR= 294 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
11255 07/03*  0   0   0    0*217 930  35    0*220 932  45    0*224 935  55    0*
11260 07/04*229 939  65    0*234 942  75    0*240 945  80    0*247 948  80    0*
11265 07/05*254 951  80    0*262 954  80    0*271 956  80    0*281 956  80    0*
11270 07/06*292 954  70    0*303 951  60    0*312 947  55    0*319 943  50    0*
11275 07/07*325 938  45    0*331 931  40    0*337 923  35    0*342 911  30    0*
11280 07/08*346 897  25    0*350 881  25    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
11285 HRBTX1CTX1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-7/5/1891     2200Z 28.8N  95.5W   80kt  1    ---   (977mb)   BTX1,CTX1
1-7/5/1891     2200Z 28.8N  95.5W   80kt  1    ---   (974mb)   BTX1,CTX1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 80 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 977 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 974 mb - 
for an 80 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

10715 08/17/1891 M=13  2 SNBR= 283 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10715 08/17/1891 M=13  2 SNBR= 294 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10720 08/17*  0   0   0    0*133 244  35    0*136 255  35    0*138 266  35    0
10725 08/18*140 277  35    0*142 288  40    0*144 299  50    0*146 310  60    0
10730 08/19*149 320  70    0*152 330  75    0*154 340  80    0*156 349  85    0
10730 08/19*149 320  65    0*152 330  65    0*154 340  65    0*156 349  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10735 08/20*158 358  85    0*161 367  85    0*163 375  85    0*165 383  85    0
10735 08/20*158 358  65    0*161 367  65    0*163 375  65    0*165 383  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10740 08/21*167 390  85    0*170 398  85    0*173 406  85    0*177 415  85    0
10740 08/21*167 390  65    0*170 398  65    0*173 406  65    0*177 415  65    0
                     **               **               **               **
 
10745 08/22*182 426  85    0*187 436  85    0*192 446  85    0*196 455  85    0
10745 08/22*182 426  65    0*187 436  65    0*192 446  65    0*196 455  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10750 08/23*200 463  85    0*205 471  85    0*209 480  85    0*214 489  85    0
10750 08/23*200 463  65    0*205 471  65    0*209 480  65    0*214 489  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10755 08/24*218 498  85    0*224 508  85    0*230 518  85    0*237 529  85    0
10755 08/24*218 498  65    0*224 508  65    0*230 518  65    0*237 529  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10760 08/25*245 540  85    0*253 552  85    0*260 563  85    0*267 573  85    0
10760 08/25*245 540  65    0*253 552  65    0*260 563  65    0*267 573  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10765 08/26*274 583  85    0*281 592  85    0*288 600  85    0*295 608  85    0
10765 08/26*274 583  65    0*281 592  65    0*288 600  65    0*295 608  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10770 08/27*302 615  85    0*309 621  85    0*316 627  85    0*324 633  85    0
10770 08/27*302 615  65    0*309 621  65    0*316 627  65    0*324 633  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10775 08/28*335 637  85    0*347 641  85    0*360 644  80    0*373 646  70    0
10775 08/28*335 637  65    0*347 641  65    0*360 644  65    0*373 646  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

10780 08/29*388 645  65    0*403 644  55    0*419 641  35    0*433 640  25    0
10780 08/29*388 645  65    0E403 644  55    0E419 641  35    0E433 640  25    0
                            *                *                *         

10785 HR    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Gale force and 
greater observations available for this system were the following:  997 mb
sea level pressure (suggestive of at least 53 kt from the subtropical 
pressure-wind relationship) at Bermuda on the 27th, a ship (the steamer
"Dunsmurry") capsized in the "hurricane" on the 29th (but no specific 
observations were provided), and 50 kt S wind on the 30th and 31st from the
steamer "La Touraine".  Thus available observational evidence suggests 
that the system may have achieved minimal hurricane intensity, but not
reaching Category 2 status as shown originally.  Winds reduced for much of 
the system's lifecycle.

********************************************************************************

10790 08/18/1891 M= 8  3 SNBR= 284 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
10790 08/18/1891 M= 8  3 SNBR= 295 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***                        *

10795 08/18*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*139 578  35    0*147 597  40    0
10795 08/18*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*133 580  90    0*139 594 100    0
                                              *** ***  **      *** *** ***

10800 08/19*155 614  65    0*162 629  75    0*168 640  80    0*174 649  85    0
10800 08/19*147 611 110  961*153 625 110    0*160 640 105    0*165 650 100    0
            *** *** ***  *** *** *** ***      ***     ***      *** *** ***

10805 08/20*179 657  85    0*184 665  80    0*190 672  80    0*196 679  80    0
10805 08/20*170 661  95    0*175 671  90    0*180 680  85    0*187 684  85    0
            *** *** ***      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

10810 08/21*202 686  85    0*207 693  85    0*213 700  85    0*218 709  85    0
10810 08/21*196 686  85    0*203 689  85    0*210 695  85    0*215 702  85    0
            ***              *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

10815 08/22*222 718  85    0*226 727  85    0*230 736  85    0*234 744  85    0
10815 08/22*218 710  85    0*221 717  85    0*225 726  85    0*229 735  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

10820 08/23*237 752  85    0*240 759  85    0*243 767  85    0*246 775  85    0
10820 08/23*233 745  85    0*238 755  85    0*243 767  85    0*246 775  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          

10825 08/24*248 782  85    0*251 789  80    0*253 797  75    0*255 806  65    0
10825 08/24*248 782  80    0*251 789  75    0*253 797  70    0*255 806  55    0
                     **               **               **               **

10830 08/25*258 815  60    0*260 826  50    0*262 837  45    0*262 848  35    0
10830 08/25*258 815  50    0*260 826  45    0*262 837  40    0*262 848  35    0
                     **               **               **

10835 HR
10835 HRCFL1
        ****

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track changes are
found to be reasonable.  A central pressure reading of 961 mb (01Z on the 
19th) suggests winds of 99 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship 
- 110 kt used in best track because of indications of a small radius of 
maximum wind (from Father Benito Vines' analysis quoted in the Partagas
and Diaz report) as well as extensive destruction in Martinique.  Hurricane 
is considered Category 1 (70 kt) at landfall in South Florida, but such 
designation is quite uncertain given the lack of observations near the 
landfall location.  Complete lifecycle of this hurricane is not available 
as neither the genesis nor the decay of the system was not documented.  The 
hurricane is also known as "San Magin", due to the rainfall-induced 
flooding that occurred in Puerto Rico.

********************************************************************************


10840 09/02/1891 M= 9  4 SNBR= 285 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10840 09/02/1891 M= 9  4 SNBR= 296 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10845 09/02*  0   0   0    0*193 582  35    0*197 592  40    0*199 600  40    0
10850 09/03*201 607  45    0*204 615  50    0*208 623  55    0*213 631  60    0
10855 09/04*218 639  70    0*223 647  75    0*228 655  80    0*234 662  85    0
10860 09/05*239 669  85    0*246 676  85    0*252 683  85    0*260 690  85    0
10865 09/06*271 697  85    0*283 703  85    0*296 710  85    0*310 714  85    0
10870 09/07*327 715  85    0*347 713  85    0*368 703  85    0*395 680  85    0
10875 09/08*426 646  80    0*458 609  75    0*486 579  70    0*509 555  65    0
10880 09/09*529 533  60    0*547 511  55    0*562 492  50    0*575 475  45    0
10880 09/09E529 533  60    0E547 511  55    0E562 492  50    0E575 475  45    0
           *                *                *                *

10885 09/10*585 459  40    0*592 445  35    0*597 433  30    0*  0   0   0    0
10885 09/10E585 459  40    0E592 445  35    0E597 433  30    0*  0   0   0    0
           *                *                *

10890 HR           

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Only intensity alteration is to
indicate extratropical stage for the hurricane north of 52N.
 
********************************************************************************

10895 09/16/1891 M=11  5 SNBR= 286 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10895 09/16/1891 M=11  5 SNBR= 297 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10900 09/16*193 465  35    0*198 471  35    0*202 478  35    0*207 488  35    0
10905 09/17*213 498  35    0*218 507  35    0*223 516  40    0*228 524  40    0
10910 09/18*232 532  45    0*237 539  50    0*242 547  55    0*248 556  60    0
10915 09/19*254 566  65    0*260 575  70    0*266 583  70    0*272 590  75    0
10920 09/20*277 596  80    0*282 601  80    0*288 607  85    0*294 613  85    0
10920 09/20*281 600  80    0*288 607  80    0*295 615  85    0*300 621  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

10925 09/21*300 618  85    0*306 623  85    0*312 628  85    0*318 631  85    0
10925 09/21*305 627  85    0*310 633  85    0*315 637  85    0*320 640  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

10930 09/22*324 632  85    0*330 631  85    0*336 630  85    0*342 628  85    0
10930 09/22*325 641  85    0*329 641  85    0*333 640  85    0*340 635  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

10935 09/23*349 624  85    0*356 617  85    0*363 607  85    0*370 591  85    0
10935 09/23*348 627  85    0*356 618  85    0*363 607  85    0*370 591  85    0
            *** ***              ***          

10940 09/24*375 573  85    0*379 555  85    0*382 538  85    0*382 523  85    0
10945 09/25*382 508  80    0*382 493  80    0*382 478  75    0*384 463  65    0
10950 09/26*388 448  55    0*394 433  40    0*402 418  35    0*413 397  30    0
10950 09/26*388 448  55    0*394 433  40    0E402 418  40    0E413 397  40    0
                                             *         **     *         **

10955 HR   

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A peripheral 
pressure reading of 980 mb (05Z on the 22nd) suggests winds of at least 
75 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in 
the best track.

********************************************************************************

10960 09/29/1891 M=10  6 SNBR= 287 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
10960 09/29/1891 M=10  6 SNBR= 298 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

10965 09/29*  0   0   0    0*207 546  35    0*212 547  35    0*217 550  40    0
10970 09/30*222 554  45    0*228 558  45    0*233 562  50    0*238 566  50    0
10975 10/01*244 571  55    0*249 576  60    0*255 582  60    0*261 590  65    0
10980 10/02*267 600  70    0*274 611  75    0*280 620  80    0*283 626  80    0
10980 10/02*266 597  70    0*271 604  75    0*277 613  80    0*283 620  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***              ***

10985 10/03*287 633  85    0*291 639  85    0*295 645  85    0*301 653  85    0
10985 10/03*289 627  85    0*294 634  85    0*300 640  85    0*308 646  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

10990 10/04*310 662  85    0*318 671  85    0*328 680  85    0*338 684  85    0
10990 10/04*318 654  85    0*327 660  85    0*335 667  85    0*346 675  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

10995 10/05*350 686  85    0*364 688  85    0*380 688  85    0*399 678  85    0
10995 10/05*353 681  85    0*365 687  85    0*380 688  75    0*399 678  65    0
            *** ***          *** ***                   **               **

11000 10/06*425 650  85    0*453 616  85    0*472 580  80    0*484 549  75    0
11000 10/06E425 650  55    0E453 616  50    0E472 580  50    0E484 549  50    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11005 10/07*496 517  70    0*506 484  65    0*516 450  65    0*525 414  60    0
11005 10/07E496 517  50    0E506 484  50    0E516 450  50    0E525 414  50    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11010 10/08*534 373  60    0*542 331  55    0*550 295  50    0*568 255  45    0
11010 10/08E534 373  50    0E542 331  50    0E552 295  50    0E568 255  45    0
           *         **     *         **     ****             *         

11015 HR     

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A peripheral 
pressure reading of 981 mb (01Z on the 4th) suggests winds of at least 
74 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt wind retained 
in the best track.  Winds reduced from the 5th to the 8th due to 
observations supporting tropical storm intensity south of and over Canada.  
Position altered slightly on last day of system to allow a more realistic 
translational velocity.

********************************************************************************


1891/07 - 2003 REVISION:

11020 10/01/1891 M=10  7 SNBR= 288 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
11020 10/01/1891 M=10  7 SNBR= 299 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

11025 10/01*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*175 598  35    0*176 608  40    0
11030 10/02*177 619  40    0*177 629  45    0*178 639  45    0*178 649  45    0
11035 10/03*179 659  45    0*179 670  45    0*179 680  45    0*180 690  45    0
11040 10/04*180 701  45    0*182 712  40    0*183 723  40    0*185 734  40    0
11045 10/05*189 745  40    0*193 756  45    0*198 767  45    0*204 778  45    0
11050 10/06*210 788  45    0*218 798  40    0*228 807  40    0*239 812  45    0
11055 10/07*250 812  45    0*262 810  40    0*273 804  40    0*284 797  40    0
11060 10/08*295 789  40    0*306 781  40    0*317 772  45    0*326 763  45    0
11065 10/09*334 753  45    0*342 743  45    0*350 732  45    0*360 718  45    0
11070 10/10*371 702  40    0*384 682  40    0*398 661  35    0*  0   0   0    0
11075 TS                    

No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made no alterations to the 
track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  (This storm along
with storms 8 and 9 is being further investigated by the re-analysis team.
Alterations - if any - will await the collection of all possible ship and
land based observations.)


1891/07 - 2004 REVISION:

11555 10/01/1891 M=10  7 SNBR= 299 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
11020 10/04/1891 M= 7  7 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **        **          ***  

(The 1st through the 3rd are removed from HURDAT.)
11560 10/01*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*175 598  35    0*176 608  40    0
11565 10/02*177 619  40    0*177 629  45    0*178 639  45    0*178 649  45    0
11570 10/03*179 659  45    0*179 670  45    0*179 680  45    0*180 690  45    0

11575 10/04*180 701  45    0*182 712  40    0*183 723  40    0*185 734  40    0
11025 10/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*150 790  35    0*160 795  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

11580 10/05*189 745  40    0*193 756  45    0*198 767  45    0*204 778  45    0
11030 10/05*170 800  45    0*175 805  45    0*180 810  45    0*187 815  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

11585 10/06*210 788  45    0*218 798  40    0*228 807  40    0*239 812  45    0
11035 10/06*195 820  45    0*205 823  45    0*215 825  45    0*226 823  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

11590 10/07*250 812  45    0*262 810  40    0*273 804  40    0*284 797  40    0
11040 10/07*237 820  40    0*248 815  45    0*260 810  40    0*271 803  40 1004
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***     ****
 
11595 10/08*295 789  40    0*306 781  40    0*317 772  45    0*326 763  45    0
11045 10/08*282 793  40    0*293 782  40    0*305 770  40    0*318 755  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11600 10/09*334 753  45    0*342 743  45    0*350 732  45    0*360 718  45    0
11050 10/09E332 740  40    0E346 725  40    0E360 710  45    0E370 695  40    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***         **** ***  **

11605 10/10*371 702  40    0*384 682  40    0*398 661  35    0*  0   0   0    0
11055 10/10E375 675  35    0E378 650  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **      *** ***  **

11610 TS                    

U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon    Max    States
                                   Winds  Affected
7-10/7/1891$   0000Z 25.0N  81.2W   45kt     FL
7-10/7/1891$   0800Z 25.2N  81.3W   45kt     FL
               ****  ****   ****

Three tropical systems in early October were first suggested by Mitchell 
(1924), which was utilized in the HURDAT database as well as Neumann et al. 
(1999) (storms 7, 8 and 9).  In contrast, the Monthly Weather Review summary 
of the era suggested one primary low forming in the Caribbean on the 6th,
moving across Cuba and Florida, impacting the U.S. mid-Atlantic states
and dissipating near Nova Scotia on the 14th.  MWR also had a secondary
low pressure forming near the Florida Keys on the 9th and merging with
the main low on the 11th.  Partagas and Diaz (1996a) believed that, "most 
likely, only one storm ... was what happened in reality".  However, they 
"did not find enough evidence to entirely disprove the existence of the 
three storms and, consequently, [they] decided to keep unchanged the tracks 
for Storms 7, 8 and 9, 1891."  

Subsequent research by the re-analysis team has uncovered evidence to
support a different conclusion to all the above:  two storm systems existed - 
1) a moderate tropical storm forming in the Caribbean on the 4th, moving
across Cuba and Florida, being absorbed in a frontal boundary and decaying
on the 10th (storm 7); and 2) a weak tropical storm also forming in the 
Caribbean on the 7th and becomming extratropical storm system near near the 
Florida Keys on the 9th, crossing Florida, slowing and becoming a strong 
"Nor'easter" on the 11th to the 13th and decaying on the 15th and 16th over 
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (was storms 8 and 9, now combined into 8).  
Storm 9 apparently never existed as a separate storm system, but was in fact 
part of the extratropical storm stage for storm 8.  Thus the two original 
tropical storms and one original hurricane in HURDAT have been replaced with 
two tropical storms. 

Evidence for this scenario comes from both the COADS ship database, U.S. 
station data obtained from NCDC, and Bermuda observations provided by
Mike Chenoweth.  These were then plotted and analyzed twice daily from 1 to 
15 October, 1891.  (Figures showing the 
station and ship observations and the team's analyses are provided.)

The remainder of this writeup focusses upon storm 7.  The discussion for
the storm 8 (originally storm 8 and storm 9) is contained in that storm's
metadata file. 

The early portion of original storm 7's track (1st through the 5th) has
been discounted partly by ship data (especially on the 4th and 5th) but
primarily by the climatological studies of Puerto Rico (Salivia 1972),  
Hispanola (Garcia-Bonnelly 1958), and Cuba (Sarasola 1928).  The first two
comprehensive tropical cyclone listings indicated that no tropical storm
or hurricane impacted those locations in October 1891.  Perez (2003 - 
personal communication) reconfirmed the earlier Cuban historical study
that the tropical system in October 1891 formed in the Caribbean and
made landfall in south central Cuba late on the 6th of October, not moving 
in along eastern Cuba as suggested in HURDAT and Neumann et al. 

Ship data first indicate a closed circulation late on the 4th in the
western Caribbean.  Peripheral pressures of 1004 and 1005 mb on the 5th and 
6th from ships and Havana suggest winds of at least 39 and 36 kt, 
respectively.  These along with ship observations suggest a maximum 1 min
wind of about 45 kt for this time period.  (Some small weakening over
Cuba is accounted for on the 7th with a return to 45 kt intensity for
landfall in south Florida.)  Station observations clearly locate the
center of the storm during its trek across Florida on the 7th.  A sea
level pressure of 1004 mb in Jupiter, Florida at 1940 UTC may have been
a central pressure.  This suggests winds of about 40 kt, which is 
utilized for the HURDAT revision.  Over water observations are somewhat
sparse on the 8th and 9th, but enhanced winds in North Carolina (peak of
39 kt at Kitty Hawk and 35 kt at Cape Hatteras) suggest a relatively
close pass east of the state early on the 9th.  This likely occurred
soon after the system's extratropical transformation.  The storm then likely 
dissipated north of Bermuda on the 10th.  It is noted that the track 
provided here is quite similar from that found in HURDAT and Neumann et al. 
(1999) for storm 7 from the 7th to the 10th.


********************************************************************************

1891/08 - 2003 REVISION:

11080 10/06/1891 M= 6  8 SNBR= 289 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
11080 10/06/1891 M= 6  8 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

11085 10/06*  0   0   0    0*159 830  35    0*164 832  40    0*171 837  40    0
11090 10/07*178 841  45    0*186 844  45    0*193 847  45    0*200 849  45    0
11095 10/08*208 850  45    0*215 850  45    0*223 848  45    0*233 844  45    0
11100 10/09*246 837  45    0*259 831  45    0*270 825  45    0*278 819  40    0
11105 10/10*284 813  35    0*291 807  35    0*298 801  40    0*307 793  45    0
11110 10/11*316 784  45    0*326 774  40    0*337 762  35    0*  0   0   0    0
11115 TS                    

No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made no alterations to the 
track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  (This storm along
with storms 7 and 9 is being further investigated by the re-analysis team.
Alterations - if any - will await the collection of all possible ship and
land based observations.)



1891/08 - 2004 REVISION:

11615 10/06/1891 M= 6  8 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
11615 10/07/1891 M=10  8 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **        **          ***                  *

(The 6th removed from HURDAT.)
11620 10/06*  0   0   0    0*159 830  35    0*164 832  40    0*171 837  40    0

11625 10/07*178 841  45    0*186 844  45    0*193 847  45    0*200 849  45    0
11625 10/07*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*180 850  30    0*185 850  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11630 10/08*208 850  45    0*215 850  45    0*223 848  45    0*233 844  45    0
11630 10/08*190 850  35    0*195 850  35    0*200 848  35    0*207 844  35    0
            ***      **      ***      **      ***      **      ***      **

11635 10/09*246 837  45    0*259 831  45    0*270 825  45    0*278 819  40    0
11635 10/09*215 840  35    0*225 837  40    0*240 835  40    0E255 828  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **     **** ***  **

11640 10/10*284 813  35    0*291 807  35    0*298 801  40    0*307 793  45    0
11640 10/10E270 815  30    0E284 807  30    0E298 800  30    0E310 788  30    0
           **** ***  **     ****      **     *    ***  **     **** ***  **

11645 10/11*316 784  45    0*326 774  40    0*337 762  35    0*  0   0   0    0
11645 10/11E320 770  30    0E326 758  35    0E332 750  40    0E338 745  45    0
           **** ***  **     *    ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

(The 8th to the 11th from storm 9 removed.  The track from storm 9 on the
12th to the 16th incorporated into storm 8's track.)
11655 10/08/1891 M= 9  9 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11660 10/08*  0   0   0    0*238 572  35    0*245 582  40    0*251 591  40    0
11665 10/09*256 601  45    0*262 612  50    0*268 625  55    0*274 639  60    0
11670 10/10*280 653  70    0*287 666  75    0*293 680  80    0*299 694  85    0
11675 10/11*305 708  85    0*312 721  85    0*321 735  85    0*330 740  85    0

11680 10/12*340 742  85    0*350 741  85    0*359 740  85    0*366 737  85    0
11680 10/12E344 740  50    0E348 737  55    0E350 735  55    0E354 733  55    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

11685 10/13*373 733  85    0*380 728  85    0*388 721  85    0*395 715  85    0
11685 10/13E360 731  55    0E370 729  55    0E380 725  55    0E390 715  55    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **     ****      **

11690 10/14*403 706  85    0*412 694  85    0*422 681  85    0*433 665  85    0
11690 10/14E400 705  55    0E410 695  55    0E420 685  50    0E433 665  45    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **     *         **

11695 10/15*446 647  80    0*460 626  75    0*475 602  70    0*500 571  65    0
11695 10/15E446 640  40    0E460 620  40    0E475 602  35    0E500 571  30    0
           *    ***  **     *    ***  **     *         **     *         **

11700 10/16*530 522  65    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
11700 10/16E530 522  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
           *         **  

11650 TS                    


U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon    Max    States
                                   Winds  Affected
8-10/9/1891$   1400Z 25.8N  81.7W   45kt     FL
(Removed from listing)

9-10/12/1891*  0600Z 35.0N  74.1W   60kt     NC
(Removed from listing)

Three tropical systems in early October were first suggested by Mitchell 
(1924), which was utilized in the HURDAT database as well as Neumann et al. 
(1999) (storms 7, 8 and 9).  In contrast, the Monthly Weather Review summary 
of the era suggested one primary low forming in the Caribbean on the 6th,
moving across Cuba and Florida, impacting the U.S. mid-Atlantic states
and dissipating near Nova Scotia on the 14th.  MWR also had a secondary
low pressure forming near the Florida Keys on the 9th and merging with
the main low on the 11th.  Partagas and Diaz (1996a) believed that, "most 
likely, only one storm ... was what happened in reality".  However, they 
"did not find enough evidence to entirely disprove the existence of the 
three storms and, consequently, [they] decided to keep unchanged the tracks 
for Storms 7, 8 and 9, 1891."  

Subsequent research by the re-analysis team has uncovered evidence to
support a different conclusion to all the above:  two storm systems existed - 
1) a moderate tropical storm forming in the Caribbean on the 4th, moving
across Cuba and Florida, being absorbed in a frontal boundary and decaying
on the 10th (storm 7); and 2) a weak tropical storm also forming in the 
Caribbean on the 7th and becomming extratropical storm system near near the 
Florida Keys on the 9th, crossing Florida, slowing and becoming a strong 
"Nor'easter" on the 11th to the 13th and decaying on the 15th and 16th over 
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (was storms 8 and 9, now combined into 8).  
Storm 9 apparently never existed as a separate storm system, but was in fact 
part of the extratropical storm stage for storm 8.  Thus the two original 
tropical storms and one original hurricane in HURDAT have been replaced with 
two tropical storms. 

Evidence for this scenario comes from both the COADS ship database, U.S. 
station data obtained from NCDC, and Bermuda observations provided by
Mike Chenoweth.  These were then plotted and analyzed twice daily from 1 to 
15 October, 1891.  (Figures showing the 
station and ship observations and the team's analyses are provided.)

The remainder of this writeup focusses upon storm 8.  The discussion for
the storm 7 is contained in that storm's metadata file. 

Original storm 8 and 9 were each depicting a portion of the same storm 
system that occurred.  The genesis of the revised system is delayed a day
until the 7th in the northwestern Caribbean.  By the time it reached
the Florida Keys on the 9th, it had merged with a pre-existing baroclinic 
zone and became an extratropical storm.  During the two day period
when the system maintained tropical cyclone status, peak observed winds
were 35 kt N from a ship at 14 UTC on the 9th at 21.0N 86.0W and lowest 
observed pressures were from same ship:  1004 mb at 22 UTC on the 7th at
20.0N 84.0W and 1005 mb at 10 UTC on the 9th at 21.0N 86.0W (though a time
series of pressure from this ship suggests that the values may be 
consistant 2-4 mb too low.  1004 mb peripheral pressure suggests winds of 
at least 39 kt from the southern pressure-wind relationship.  Peak estimated 
winds as a tropical storm are 40 kt on the 9th.  However, by the
time the system reached the Florida Keys as an extratropical system, either 
it had weakened slightly or had not actually attained tropical storm 
intensity.  Peak conditions observed were only 21 kt and 1012 mb in Key West
as the system passed just to the west of the city.  The extratrpical storm 
then moved slowly northeastward across Florida into the Atlantic and then 
drifted to the north beginning on the 11th for about 36 hours southeast of 
Cape Hatteras.  During this time a high built in from the north and west and 
in conjunction with the extratropical storm caused strong northeasterly winds 
along the U.S. mid-Atlantic and New England coasts.  Peak (uncorrected) 5 min 
sustained winds reached 57 kt at Kitty Hawk, 63 kt at Cape Hatteras, 41 kt at 
Atlantic City, 63 kt at Block Island, and 50 kt at Nantucket.  The estimated
maximum 1 min winds for this system during its extratropical stage were
about 55 kt.  On the 13th to the 15th, the baroclinic low moved northeastward 
and weakened.  The baroclinic nature of this system is quite clear - it had 
at times a 25F east-west temperature gradient while along the Atlantic coast.
The early portion of the original storm 9 also appears to be incorrect 
based upon ship and Bermuda data on the 8th to the 11th.  There is no
indication that a low (tropical or baroclinic) came toward the U.S.
Atlantic seaboard from the southeast.  However, the portion of original
storm 9's track from the 12th to the 15th does closely match the analysis 
here of the extratropical storm stage for this revised storm 8.  However,
it is to be noted that the evidence for retaining this system in HURDAT
at all as a tropical storm is marginal given one gale force report and
a couple suspect low pressure readings.

********************************************************************************

1891/09 - 2004 REVISION:

Note:  Storm was originally 1891/10, but became 1891/09 after the removal
of the original 1891/09 - May 2004.


1891/09 - 2003 REVISION:

11175 10/12/1891 M= 9 10 SNBR= 291 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11175 10/12/1891 M= 9 10 SNBR= 302 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

11180 10/12*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*125 613  35    0*136 620  45    0
11180 10/12*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*125 613  35    0*136 620  35    0
                                                                        **

11185 10/13*147 627  60    0*156 632  70    0*162 636  80    0*167 639  80    0
11185 10/13*147 627  40    0*156 632  40    0*162 636  45    0*167 639  45    0
                     **               **               **               **

11190 10/14*172 641  85    0*177 644  85    0*182 646  85    0*187 648  85    0
11190 10/14*172 641  50    0*177 644  50    0*182 646  55    0*187 648  55    0
                     **               **               **               **

11195 10/15*192 650  85    0*197 652  85    0*202 654  85    0*213 656  85    0
11195 10/15*192 650  60    0*197 652  60    0*202 654  65    0*213 656  70    0
                     **               **               **               **

11200 10/16*224 658  85    0*234 660  85    0*245 662  85    0*256 663  85    0
11200 10/16*224 658  75    0*234 660  75    0*245 662  75    0*256 663  75    0
                     **               **               **               **

11205 10/17*267 662  85    0*277 661  85    0*288 660  85    0*297 659  85    0
11205 10/17*267 662  75    0*277 661  75    0*288 660  75    0*297 659  75    0
                     **               **               **               **

11210 10/18*303 659  85    0*310 658  85    0*320 657  85    0*334 655  85    0
11210 10/18*303 659  75    0*310 658  75    0*320 657  75    0*334 655  75    0
                     **               **               **               **

11215 10/19*353 653  85    0*372 649  85    0*390 639  85    0*409 623  85    0
11215 10/19*353 653  75    0*372 649  75    0*390 639  70    0*409 623  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

11220 10/20*430 602  80    0*448 582  65    0*465 570  60    0*485 575  35    0
11220 10/20*430 602  60    0*448 582  50    0*465 570  40    0*485 575  35    0
                     **               **               **               **

11225 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any track changes from 
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999) for this hurricane.  Gale force and 
greater observations available for this system were the following:
"gales of hurricane force" on the 17th east-northeast of the Bahamas, 
60 kt SE-SW wind and 992 mb on the 18th at Bermuda (this peripheral
sea level pressure suggests winds of at least 61 kt from the subtropical
wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt utilized), 70 kt wind on the 19th 
("Ocean Prince") at 36 N, 62 W.  Available observational evidence 
suggests that the peak intensity for this hurricane was a minimal 
hurricane (Category 1), rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) 
originally in HURDAT.  Winds are reduced accordingly from the 13th to 
the 20th.  Hurricane intensity attained after passing through the Lesser 
Antilles.

********************************************************************************


1891/10 - 2004 REVISION:

Note:  Storm was originally 1891/11, but became 1891/10 after the removal
of the original 1891/10 - May 2004.


1891/10 - 2003 REVISION:

11230 11/03/1891 M= 4 11 SNBR= 292 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11230 11/03/1891 M= 4 11 SNBR= 303 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

11235 11/03*241 738  35    0*250 725  35    0*257 716  40    0*268 703  45    0
11240 11/04*279 687  45    0*291 668  50    0*302 647  50    0*313 621  50    0
11245 11/05*325 592  50    0*338 562  50    0*352 538  45    0*380 512  40    0
11250 11/06*416 490  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
11255 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  The only change is to renumber the 
storm number for the year.

********************************************************************************

1891 - Additional Notes - 2004 REVISION:


1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into
the possible storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1996b)
in mid-July 1891:

   "1891  additional system #1 (July)  MWR mentions 'gale' winds.  
    This system may warrant further research.  Is there any COADS?"

Upon investigation of this system in the Monthly Weather Review, from
the COADS ship database, and coastal station data, this system was of
tropical depression intensity at its peak.  The COADS data were sparse
in the vicinity of the system until the 12th, when it was east of the
U.S. mid-Atlantic states.  Peak ship observations were 25 kt and 1014 mb,
though a weak closed circulation was analyzed.  Station data were also
obtained for Jacksonville, Jupiter, Titusville, Savannah, Charleston,
Wilmington, Cape Hatteras, Kitty Hawk, Baltimore, Atlantic City, New 
York City, New London, New Haven, Block Island and Nantucket.  Peak 
observed winds were 36 mph at Kitty Hawk (10th and 11th) and at 
Cape Hatteras (11th).  These observations also support tropical depression
status for this system.  While "fresh to strong gales" were mentioned
in the Monthly Weather Review, no evidence for these were to be found
from any source.  Thus this system is not added into HURDAT.


2) September 11-12, 1891:  Partagas and Diaz (1996b) had investigated 
this system for possibility of inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team 
agreed with Partagas and Diaz to leave it out of HURDAT as there was not
enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.


3) September 14-15, 1891:  Partagas and Diaz (1996b) had investigated 
this system for possibility of inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team 
agreed with Partagas and Diaz to leave it out of HURDAT as there was not
enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.


4) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into
the possible storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1996b)
in mid-September 1891:

   "1891  additional system #4 (Sept)  MWR gives TS force winds at 
    coastal stations.  This system is also given a high probability 
    by P+D, and bears further investigation."

Upon investigation of this system in the Monthly Weather Review, from
the COADS ship database, and coastal station data, a closed circulation for
this system could not be found.  The COADS ship data did not provide any
observations near the system, though the station data was quite thorough
with observations obtained for Key West, Jupiter, Titusville, Tampa, 
Jacksonville, Pensacola, Mobile, Port Eads, New Orleans and Galveston.
These data indicate that a disturbance did cross the Gulf of Mexico
being located roughly along longitude 78W on the 17th, 80W on
the 18th, 82W on the 19th, 85W on the 20th, 88W on the 21st, and 90W
on the 22nd.  Peak winds recorded in association with this system were
40 mph E at Titusville on the 19th, 48 mph NE at New Orleans on the 20th,
and 40 mph NE at Galveston on the 20th.  However, only easterly winds were 
reported from these locations and lowest pressure recorded was only 
1014 mb at Key West on the 19th.  It is possible that this was a
tropical storm, but confirming observations for having a closed 
circulation were not found.  (It is also possible that the system was
a vigorous easterly wave with no closed circulation and a NNE-SSW oriented
wave axis.)  Thus because of the uncertainty and lack of having an observed 
closed circulation, this system is not included into HURDAT.


5) Storm 9 in Partagas and Diaz (1996a) and Neumann et al. (1999) apparently 
did not exist as a separate tropical cyclone, but was in fact part of the 
extratropical storm stage for storm 8.  Thus this system is removed from
HURDAT.  Details on the observations for this removal can be found within
the discussion of storm 8.  (Figures showing 
the station and ship observations and the team's analyses are provided.).  
Below is the original HURDAT entry for this system:

11120 10/08/1891 M= 9  9 SNBR= 290 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11125 10/08*  0   0   0    0*238 572  35    0*245 582  40    0*251 591  40    0
11130 10/09*256 601  45    0*262 612  50    0*268 625  55    0*274 639  60    0
11135 10/10*280 653  70    0*287 666  75    0*293 680  80    0*299 694  85    0
11140 10/11*305 708  85    0*312 721  85    0*321 735  85    0*330 740  85    0
11145 10/12*340 742  85    0*350 741  85    0*359 740  85    0*366 737  85    0
11150 10/13*373 733  85    0*380 728  85    0*388 721  85    0*395 715  85    0
11155 10/14*403 706  85    0*412 694  85    0*422 681  85    0*433 665  85    0
11160 10/15*446 647  80    0*460 626  75    0*475 602  70    0*500 571  65    0
11165 10/16*530 522  65    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
11170 HR

********************************************************************************

11260 06/10/1892 M= 7  1 SNBR= 293 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
11260 06/09/1892 M= 8  1 SNBR= 304 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **         *          ***

(9th not in HURDAT previously.)
11262 06/09*208 831  35    0*213 834  35    0*217 837  35    0*221 838  35    0

11265 06/10*237 853  35    0*245 844  35    0*250 836  40    0*258 824  40    0
11265 06/10*229 839  35    0*238 838  35    0*247 833  40    0*252 822  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

11270 06/11*265 812  45    0*272 801  45    0*278 792  35    0*283 781  35    0
11270 06/11*258 810  35    0*264 799  35    0*270 787  35    0*276 776  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

11275 06/12*287 771  40    0*290 761  45    0*293 751  45    0*296 740  45    0
11275 06/12*282 767  40    0*289 758  45    0*293 751  45    0*296 740  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***     

11280 06/13*299 728  45    0*302 719  45    0*304 716  45    0*310 716  45    0
11285 06/14*314 720  45    0*313 727  45    0*312 736  45    0*312 741  45    0
11290 06/15*313 747  45    0*315 753  45    0*318 758  45    0*320 760  45    0
11295 06/16*323 760  45    0*326 760  40    0*330 760  40    0*335 760  35    0
11300 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track changes are found
to be reasonable.

********************************************************************************


11305 08/16/1892 M= 9  2 SNBR= 294 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11305 08/15/1892 M=10  2 SNBR= 305 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **        **          ***

(15th not previously in HURDAT.)
11307 08/15*180 545  35    0*180 555  35    0*180 565  35    0*181 575  35    0

11310 08/16*  0   0   0    0*181 563  35    0*181 573  40    0*184 585  45    0
11310 08/16*182 585  35    0*185 595  35    0*189 605  40    0*193 614  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

11315 08/17*187 597  55    0*192 609  60    0*197 620  65    0*203 631  70    0
11315 08/17*197 622  45    0*201 630  45    0*206 637  50    0*211 643  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11320 08/18*210 642  75    0*218 652  80    0*228 662  80    0*241 673  85    0
11320 08/18*215 650  55    0*220 657  55    0*228 663  60    0*240 670  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **

11325 08/19*258 677  85    0*274 678  85    0*288 679  85    0*299 678  85    0
11325 08/19*249 673  65    0*259 677  65    0*270 680  65    0*284 684  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11330 08/20*310 676  85    0*320 673  85    0*331 669  85    0*342 665  85    0
11330 08/20*300 686  65    0*318 686  65    0*335 680  65    0*351 672  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11335 08/21*354 660  85    0*368 652  85    0*400 630  85    0*417 616  85    0
11335 08/21*364 662  65    0*382 647  65    0*400 630  65    0*417 616  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **               **

11340 08/22*435 598  80    0*452 578  70    0*470 552  70    0*492 515  70    0
11340 08/22E435 598  60    0E452 578  55    0E470 552  50    0E492 515  50    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11345 08/23*519 470  70    0*547 435  70    0*570 410  70    0*584 393  70    0
11345 08/23E519 470  50    0E547 435  50    0E570 410  50    0E584 393  50    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11350 08/24*595 370  70    0*601 336  65    0*606 310  60    0*609 283  55    0
11350 08/24E595 370  45    0E601 336  45    0E606 310  40    0E609 283  40    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11355 HR    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999) for this hurricane.
Available gale force or greater observations are as follows:  40 kt SE wind
on Aug. 17 at 21.6 N, 60.1 W (steamship "Francia"), 60 kt S-SE wind at 00 UTC 
on Aug. 19 at 24.3 N, 65.4 W (steamer "Duart Castle"), 35 kt SW wind and
1006 mb at 10 UTC on Aug. 20 at Bermuda, and NW-N "gales of hurricane force
along the trans-Atlantic shipping routes between 50 and 65 W on Aug. 22.  
These observations indicate that the system peaked at minimal hurricane
status, rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) originally found in 
HURDAT.  The hurricane is estimated to have transitioned to extratropical on 
the 22nd based upon ship reports of strong northerly gales between 50 and 65W.

********************************************************************************

11360 09/03/1892 M=15  3 SNBR= 295 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11360 09/03/1892 M=15  3 SNBR= 306 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

11365 09/03*  0   0   0    0*115 330  35    0*116 346  35    0*119 363  40    0
11370 09/04*122 378  40    0*124 391  40    0*127 402  45    0*129 410  50    0
11375 09/05*132 417  50    0*134 423  55    0*137 431  60    0*142 442  65    0
11380 09/06*148 454  65    0*154 466  70    0*161 475  75    0*168 482  75    0
11385 09/07*174 488  80    0*181 494  85    0*187 499  85    0*193 504  85    0
11390 09/08*199 509  85    0*205 513  85    0*212 518  85    0*220 523  85    0
11395 09/09*229 527  85    0*238 531  85    0*247 534  85    0*256 536  85    0
11400 09/10*264 538  85    0*273 540  85    0*281 541  85    0*290 543  85    0
11405 09/11*298 544  85    0*307 545  85    0*317 546  85    0*329 545  85    0
11410 09/12*345 540  85    0*361 532  85    0*376 522  85    0*389 509  85    0
11415 09/13*403 493  85    0*415 473  85    0*428 450  85    0*440 423  80    0
11420 09/14*451 393  75    0*461 363  70    0*470 338  65    0*477 316  60    0
11425 09/15*482 294  60    0*485 272  55    0*487 250  55    0*482 228  50    0
11430 09/16*475 206  50    0*468 184  50    0*462 162  50    0*456 144  50    0
11435 09/17*451 131  45    0*447 122  40    0*443 115  35    0*  0   0   0    0
11440 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  No observations of gale force or 
greater winds were found for this system.  Without data for substantiating
changes to HURDAT's original intensity estimates, no alterations are made
for this hurricane. 

********************************************************************************

11445 09/09/1892 M= 9  4 SNBR= 296 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
11445 09/08/1892 M=10  4 SNBR= 307 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **        **          ***

(The 8th is new to HURDAT.)
11447 09/08*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*220 928  35    0

11450 09/09*220 928  35    0*228 934  35    0*241 942  40    0*249 944  45    0
11450 09/09*227 932  35    0*234 937  35    0*241 942  40    0*249 944  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***

11455 09/10*256 942  50    0*261 939  50    0*266 936  50    0*269 933  50    0
11460 09/11*271 929  50    0*274 924  50    0*276 920  50    0*279 916  50    0
11465 09/12*283 912  50    0*289 907  50    0*297 901  45    0*309 889  40    0
11470 09/13*327 877  35    0*347 865  35    0*368 854  35    0*392 843  35    0
11470 09/13*327 877  35    0*347 865  35    0E368 854  40    0E392 843  45    0
                                             *         **     *         **

11475 09/14*419 831  35    0*443 820  35    0*462 808  35    0*476 792  35    0
11475 09/14E419 831  50    0E443 820  50    0E462 808  45    0E476 792  45    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11480 09/15*489 771  35    0*502 746  35    0*514 720  35    0*526 689  35    0
11480 09/15E489 771  40    0E502 746  40    0E514 720  35    0E526 689  35    0
           *         **     *         **     *                *

11485 09/16*539 652  35    0*551 615  35    0*563 584  35    0*574 560  35    0
11485 09/16E539 652  35    0E551 615  35    0E563 584  35    0E574 560  35    0
           *                *                *                *

11490 09/17*584 542  35    0*594 528  35    0*603 519  35    0*  0   0   0    0
11490 09/17E584 542  35    0E594 528  35    0E603 519  35    0*  0   0   0    0
           *                *                *      

11495 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Track extended back in time slightly
and adjusted to provide for a more reasonable translational velocity at
the beginning of the storm.  Winds are intensified overland while
undergoing extratropical transition due to wind and pressure observations. 

********************************************************************************

11500 09/13/1892 M=11  5 SNBR= 297 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11500 09/12/1892 M=12  5 SNBR= 308 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **        **          ***

(12th not originally in HURDAT.)
11502 09/12*153 195  35    0*154 205  40    0*155 215  45    0*156 223  50    0

11505 09/13*  0   0   0    0*153 194  35    0*154 207  35    0*156 219  35    0
11505 09/13*157 230  55    0*159 236  60    0*160 241  65    0*162 248  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11510 09/14*158 231  35    0*160 242  40    0*163 254  50    0*166 266  60    0
11510 09/14*164 255  75    0*166 262  80    0*169 270  85    0*171 277  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11515 09/15*169 277  70    0*172 289  75    0*176 300  80    0*180 311  80    0
11515 09/15*173 284  85    0*174 292  85    0*176 300  85    0*180 311  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **               **

11520 09/16*184 323  85    0*189 334  85    0*194 345  85    0*199 356  85    0
11525 09/17*205 367  85    0*210 378  85    0*215 389  85    0*220 398  85    0
11530 09/18*224 406  85    0*229 414  85    0*234 422  85    0*239 431  85    0
11535 09/19*245 440  85    0*250 449  85    0*256 458  85    0*261 466  85    0
11540 09/20*267 474  85    0*272 482  85    0*277 489  85    0*283 495  80    0
11545 09/21*290 500  80    0*298 504  80    0*306 507  75    0*316 509  70    0
11550 09/22*326 507  70    0*337 503  70    0*347 497  65    0*355 487  60    0
11555 09/23*363 473  50    0*369 454  45    0*375 432  35    0*382 419  25    0
11560 HR    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999) for this hurricane.
Winds increased from the 12th to the 15th to account for hurricane 
conditions experienced in and near the Cape Verde Islands.

********************************************************************************

11845 09/25/1892 M= 3  6 SNBR= 298 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11845 09/25/1892 M= 3  6 SNBR= 309 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

11850 09/25*  0   0   0    0*195 922  35    0*196 929  40    0*199 936  40    0
11855 09/26*203 943  45    0*208 949  50    0*213 955  50    0*219 961  50    0
11860 09/27*225 966  50    0*231 971  50    0*238 976  45    0*243 979  35    0
11865 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).

********************************************************************************


11590 10/05/1892 M=11  7 SNBR= 299 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11590 10/05/1892 M=12  7 SNBR= 310 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                   **          ***

11595 10/05*115 562  35    0*113 570  40    0*112 576  45    0*112 578  50    0
11595 10/05*115 562  35    0*113 570  40    0*112 576  45    0*112 582  50    0
                                                                   ***

11600 10/06*112 583  55    0*111 589  55    0*111 598  60    0*111 609  65    0
11600 10/06*112 587  55    0*111 592  55    0*111 600  60    0*111 609  65    0
                ***              ***              ***

11605 10/07*111 620  70    0*112 632  75    0*113 644  80    0*115 657  80    0
11610 10/08*116 670  85    0*118 683  85    0*120 696  85    0*122 708  85    0
11615 10/09*124 720  85    0*125 731  85    0*127 743  85    0*129 756  85    0
11620 10/10*131 769  85    0*134 783  85    0*137 795  85    0*140 805  85    0
11625 10/11*143 813  85    0*146 821  85    0*150 830  85    0*155 841  85    0
11625 10/11*143 813  85    0*146 821  85    0*150 830  85    0*155 841  80    0
                                                                        **

11630 10/12*159 851  85    0*164 862  85    0*169 872  80    0*174 883  75    0
11630 10/12*159 851  75    0*164 862  80    0*169 872  85    0*174 883  85    0
                     **               **               **               **

11635 10/13*179 893  70    0*183 904  70    0*187 914  70    0*190 923  70    0
11635 10/13*179 893  60    0*183 904  55    0*187 914  55    0*190 923  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

11640 10/14*193 930  70    0*195 935  75    0*198 941  80    0*200 947  85    0
11645 10/15*203 954  85    0*206 960  85    0*209 966  80    0*213 973  35    0
11645 10/15*203 954  85    0*206 960  85    0*209 966  80    0*213 973  70    0
                                                                        **

(16th not previously in HURDAT.)
11647 10/16*217 980  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0

11650 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Positions on the 5th and 6th are
adjusted slightly to provide realistic translational velocities.  Winds are 
adjusted to better accommodate passage over land.  Additional six hour 
position/intensity added on the 16th to allow for reasonable (but quick) 
decay over the mountainous terrain of Mexico.

********************************************************************************

11655 10/13/1892 M= 8  8 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11655 10/13/1892 M= 8  8 SNBR= 311 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

11660 10/13*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*262 695  35    0
11660 10/13*260 712  40    0*265 707  50    0*270 700  60    0*275 691  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11665 10/14*269 682  35    0*275 671  35    0*280 661  40    0*285 650  40    0
11665 10/14*280 683  70    0*285 677  75    0*290 670  80    0*296 662  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11670 10/15*290 640  45    0*295 632  45    0*300 626  50    0*302 623  50    0
11670 10/15*301 656  80    0*306 649  80    0*310 643  80    0*315 634  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11675 10/16*304 620  50    0*307 616  50    0*311 609  50    0*316 599  50    0
11675 10/16*320 626  75    0*325 617  70    0*330 609  60    0*337 597  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **      *** ***  

11680 10/17*322 588  50    0*330 575  50    0*339 561  50    0*350 547  50    0
11680 10/17*344 582  50    0*350 572  50    0*355 560  50    0*362 546  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

11685 10/18*363 532  50    0*376 517  50    0*388 502  50    0*397 487  50    0
11685 10/18E370 531  50    0E378 518  50    0E388 502  50    0E397 487  50    0
           **** ***         **** ***         *                *

11690 10/19*404 473  50    0*411 463  50    0*419 455  45    0*432 446  45    0
11690 10/19E404 473  50    0E411 463  50    0E419 455  45    0E432 446  45    0
           *                *                *                *

11695 10/20*448 441  45    0*462 449  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
11695 10/20E448 441  45    0E462 449  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
           *                *

11700 TS
11700 HR
      **

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Intensity is
increased to Category 1 (80 kt) hurricane based upon reports of hurricane 
force ship observations on the 13th as well as 60 kt observed wind in
Bermuda in the weak semi-circle of the storm on the 15th.

********************************************************************************

11705 10/21/1892 M= 9  9 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
11705 10/21/1892 M= 9  9 SNBR= 312 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

11710 10/21*230 926  35    0*232 922  35    0*235 917  40    0*237 914  40    0
11715 10/22*239 910  40    0*242 906  45    0*246 900  45    0*251 894  45    0
11720 10/23*255 887  45    0*260 879  45    0*262 872  45    0*266 863  45    0
11720 10/23*255 887  45    0*259 879  45    0*262 872  45    0*266 863  45    0
                             ***

11725 10/24*269 855  45    0*271 848  45    0*273 840  45    0*276 830  45    0
11725 10/24*269 855  45    0*271 848  45    0*273 840  45    0*276 827  45    0
                                                                   ***

11730 10/25*278 820  40    0*280 810  40    0*282 799  35    0*284 780  35    0
11730 10/25*280 810  40    0*283 792  35    0*285 777  35    0*286 765  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

11735 10/26*287 763  35    0*290 748  40    0*293 735  40    0*297 721  45    0
11735 10/26*288 756  35    0*290 746  40    0*293 735  40    0*297 721  45    0
            *** ***              ***

11740 10/27*305 710  45    0*312 702  45    0*320 695  45    0*327 689  45    0
11745 10/28*333 683  45    0*340 678  45    0*347 672  45    0*358 666  45    0
11750 10/29*366 662  45    0*375 660  40    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
11755 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  

********************************************************************************

1892 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned three additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) September 11-14, 1892:  Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical.
2) September 12, 1892:  Possible new hurricane, but location not known.
3) October 1-2, 1892:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.

********************************************************************************

11760 06/12/1893 M= 9  1 SNBR= 302 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
11760 06/12/1893 M= 9  1 SNBR= 313 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***                        *

11765 06/12*  0   0   0    0*205 952  35    0*212 947  40    0*217 943  45    0
11770 06/13*222 939  55    0*227 934  65    0*233 927  75    0*240 919  80    0
11770 06/13*222 939  50    0*227 934  55    0*233 927  60    0*240 919  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

11775 06/14*245 912  85    0*252 904  85    0*258 897  85    0*262 889  85    0
11775 06/14*245 912  60    0*252 904  60    0*258 897  60    0*262 889  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

11780 06/15*266 882  85    0*270 874  85    0*275 867  85    0*286 853  80    0
11780 06/15*266 882  60    0*270 874  60    0*277 865  60    0*286 853  60    0
                     **               **      *** ***  **               **

11785 06/16*301 834  70    0*317 815  55    0*331 798  50    0*343 784  50    0
11785 06/16*301 834  50    0*317 815  45    0*331 798  50    0*343 784  50    0
                     **               **             

11790 06/17*355 771  50    0*366 757  55    0*375 743  60    0*383 729  65    0
11795 06/18*390 716  70    0*398 702  75    0*405 688  80    0*412 668  80    0
11795 06/18*390 716  65    0*398 702  65    0*405 688  65    0*412 668  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

11800 06/19*420 641  85    0*427 613  85    0*434 593  85    0*440 580  85    0
11800 06/19*420 641  65    0*427 613  65    0*434 593  65    0*440 580  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

11805 06/20*445 568  80    0*450 558  75    0*454 550  70    0*459 540  65    0
11805 06/20E445 568  60    0E450 558  60    0E454 550  60    0E459 540  60    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11810 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Available observational data for
Florida indicates that the system was likely of strong tropical storm
intensity at landfall.  Hurricane is downgraded from the original standard
Category 2 (85 kt) to a Category 1 (65 kt) hurricane at peak intensity,
since observational evidence suggests that it was (at most) a minimal
hurricane.  

********************************************************************************


11815 07/04/1893 M= 4  2 SNBR= 303 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11815 07/04/1893 M= 4  2 SNBR= 314 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

11820 07/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*111 792  35    0*118 798  40    0
11825 07/05*126 804  50    0*133 812  60    0*140 820  70    0*147 829  80    0
11825 07/05*126 804  50    0*133 812  60    0*140 820  70    0*147 829  85    0
                                                                        **

11830 07/06*154 839  85    0*160 849  85    0*167 860  85    0*172 870  80    0
11830 07/06*154 839  75    0*160 849  70    0*167 860  80    0*172 870  80    0
                     **               **               **

11835 07/07*179 882  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
11835 07/07*179 882  80    0*184 895  60    0*187 910  40    0*190 925  30    0
                     **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

11840 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds reduced slightly on the 6th
due to the center of the hurricane passing over Honduras, though original
landfall intensity at Nicaragua/Honduras retained (85 kt).  Three position and 
intensity values were added on the 7th because original final position was 
not over land.  These allow for a reasonable decay of the hurricane over 
land by using the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model.

********************************************************************************

11845 08/13/1893 M=13  3 SNBR= 304 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11845 08/13/1893 M=13  3 SNBR= 315 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

11850 08/13*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0* 96 505  35    0*103 515  40    0
11855 08/14*109 526  40    0*116 537  45    0*122 548  50    0*129 560  55    0
11860 08/15*135 573  60    0*142 585  65    0*148 597  65    0*154 608  70    0
11865 08/16*160 618  75    0*166 629  80    0*172 639  80    0*178 649  85    0
11865 08/16*160 618  75    0*166 629  80    0*172 639  90    0*176 649 100    0
                                                       **      ***     ***

11870 08/17*183 660  90    0*188 670  90    0*194 680  95    0*200 689 100    0
11870 08/17*180 659 100    0*185 670  90    0*190 680  95    0*196 689 100    0
            *** *** ***      ***              ***              ***     

11875 08/18*206 697 100    0*212 704 105    0*218 712 105    0*225 721 105    0
11875 08/18*202 697 100    0*209 704 105    0*218 712 105    0*225 721 105    0
            ***              ***    

11880 08/19*232 729 105    0*240 738 105    0*248 747 105    0*257 754 105    0
11885 08/20*267 757 105    0*279 758 105    0*301 753 105    0*308 750 105    0
11885 08/20*267 757 105    0*279 758 105    0*291 755 100    0*308 750  95    0
                                              *** *** ***              *** 

11890 08/21*327 738 105    0*348 723 105    0*370 706 105    0*395 686 100    0
11890 08/21*327 738  90    0*348 723  90    0*370 706  90    0*395 686  80    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

11895 08/22*422 663 100    0*448 638  95    0*474 597  90    0*499 553  85    0
11895 08/22*422 663  70    0E448 638  60    0E474 597  50    0E494 553  50    0
                    ***     *         **     *         **     ****      **

11900 08/23*507 525  80    0*513 500  75    0*519 480  70    0*511 451  65    0
11900 08/23E507 525  50    0E513 500  50    0E516 480  50    0E511 451  50    0
           *         **     *         **     ****      **     *         **

11905 08/24*504 431  65    0*496 418  60    0*491 400  60    0*492 387  60    0
11905 08/24E504 431  50    0E496 418  50    0E491 400  50    0E492 387  50    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11910 08/25*494 371  60    0*497 360  60    0*500 350  60    0*506 339  60    0
11910 08/25E494 371  50    0E497 360  45    0E500 350  40    0E506 339  35    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11915 HR    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Analysis from
Boose et al. (2003) documents widespread Fujita-scale F2 wind-caused
damage over Puerto Rico.  Thus winds increased to 100 kt (Category 3) at
landfall over that island.  Winds are increased accordingly on the
16th and 17th.  Observational evidence found in Partagas and Diaz suggests 
a weakening of the system after recurvature - winds are reduced from the 
20th to the 22nd accordingly.  Additionally, no evidence is available that 
indicates that the storm struck as a hurricane in Canada.  Winds reduced 
from the 23rd to the 25th accordingly.  The hurricane is known as "San 
Roque III" in Puerto Rico from the impacts in that island.

********************************************************************************

11920 08/15/1893 M=12  4 SNBR= 305 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
11920 08/15/1893 M=12  4 SNBR= 316 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***                        *

11925 08/15*  0   0   0    0*140 365  35    0*142 377  40    0*144 386  45    0
11930 08/16*147 396  45    0*149 405  50    0*151 415  55    0*153 426  60    0
11935 08/17*156 437  65    0*159 448  65    0*161 459  70    0*163 469  75    0
11940 08/18*165 479  80    0*168 489  85    0*172 499  85    0*176 513  85    0
11945 08/19*180 529  85    0*185 545  85    0*191 558  85    0*197 570  85    0
11950 08/20*203 581  85    0*210 592  85    0*216 603  85    0*222 614  85    0
11955 08/21*227 624  85    0*233 635  85    0*239 649  85    0*244 658  85    0
11955 08/21*227 624  85    0*233 635  85    0*239 646  85    0*244 658  85    0
                                                  ***

11960 08/22*252 671  85    0*261 684  85    0*271 698  85    0*284 707  85    0
11960 08/22*252 671  85    0*261 684  90    0*271 698  95    0*284 707 100    0
                                      **               **              ***

11965 08/23*298 716  85    0*314 725  85    0*331 732  85    0*353 737  85    0
11965 08/23*298 716 100  952*314 725 100    0*331 732 100    0*350 737  95    0
                    ***  ***         ***              ***      ***      **

11970 08/24*373 740  85    0*394 739  80    0*414 735  80    0*434 724  75    0
11970 08/24*368 740  85    0*386 739  80    0*407 739  75  986*430 730  60    0
            ***              ***              *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **

11975 08/25*454 707  70    0*474 685  65    0*493 660  60    0*506 631  60    0
11975 08/25E454 710  55    0E474 685  50    0E493 660  45    0E506 631  45    0
           *    ***  **     *         **     *         **     *         **

11980 08/26*511 597  60    0*511 565  60    0*507 538  60    0*500 514  60    0
11980 08/26E511 597  40    0E511 565  40    0E507 538  40    0E500 514  40    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **     
    
11985 HR
11985 HR NY1
         ***

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Track near landfall slightly altered 
to better fit passage of the eye over New York City.  A central pressure 
of 952 mb (03Z on the 23rd) suggests winds of 101 kt from the subtropical 
wind-pressure relationship - supporting upgrading this hurricane to a 100 kt 
Category 3 for best track.  A peripheral pressure of 990 mb (11Z on the 24th) 
suggests winds of at least 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship
- 75 kt chosen for best track.  Estimate of RMW of 45 nmi provided by 
Coch and Jarvinen (2000), while an estimate of 30 nmi for RMW was provided
by Boose et al. (2001) based upon observations and modeling of observed 
wind-caused damages.  The latter estimate is chosen here, as this may provide
a more direct RMW result for this region.  Given the track of the hurricane 
and the estimated RMW, SLOSH model runs suggest a central pressure of 986 mb 
(Jarvinen, personal communication) - which corresponds to 67 kt maximum 
sustained winds from the northern wind-pressure relationship.  75 kt winds 
chosen for best track at landfall, which is reasonable given the slightly 
smaller than usual RMW at this latitude and central pressure.   Thus the U.S. 
landfall intensity determined here is a 75 kt Category 1 hurricane in New 
York, which is at the low end of the range of the Fujita-scale F2 (upper 
Category 1 to all of Category 2) damage analyzed in Boose et al. (2001).  
Additionally, the changes introduced here in intensity on the 24th and 25th 
after landfall match closely the analysis of wind-caused damage by Boose 
et al. (2001). Hurricane also known as the "Midnight Storm" (Coch and 
Jarvinen 2000).


1893/04 - 2006 REVISION:

12470 08/15/1893 M=12  4 SNBR= 316 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
12475 08/15*  0   0   0    0*140 365  35    0*142 377  40    0*144 386  45    0*
12480 08/16*147 396  45    0*149 405  50    0*151 415  55    0*153 426  60    0*
12485 08/17*156 437  65    0*159 448  65    0*161 459  70    0*163 469  75    0*
12490 08/18*165 479  80    0*168 489  85    0*172 499  85    0*176 513  85    0*
12495 08/19*180 529  85    0*185 545  85    0*191 558  85    0*197 570  85    0*
12500 08/20*203 581  85    0*210 592  85    0*216 603  85    0*222 614  85    0*
12505 08/21*227 624  85    0*233 635  85    0*239 646  85    0*244 658  85    0*
12510 08/22*252 671  85    0*261 684  90    0*271 698  95    0*284 707 100    0*
12515 08/23*298 716 100  952*314 725 100    0*331 732 100    0*350 737  95    0*
12520 08/24*368 740  85    0*386 739  80    0*407 739  75  986*430 730  60    0*
12525 08/25E454 710  55    0E474 685  50    0E493 660  40    0E506 631  45    0*
12530 08/26E511 597  40    0E511 565  40    0E507 538  40    0E500 514  40    0*
12535 HR NY1 VA1                                                                
12535 HR NY1 CT1
             ***

Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone passed too far to the east of 
Virginia for that state to be counted as a hurricane impact.  Moreover,
inspection of the track and intensity in HURDAT suggests that Connecticut
likely experienced Category 1 hurricane impact along a portion of
their coastline.  Despite passing quite close to New Jersey, this cyclone
likely did not cause hurricane force winds along that state's coast due
the hurricane's translational speed and induced wind asymmetries.

********************************************************************************

11990 08/15/1893 M= 5  5 SNBR= 306 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
11990 08/15/1893 M= 5  5 SNBR= 317 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

11995 08/15*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*322 604  35    0*331 621  40    0
12000 08/16*342 640  45    0*355 661  55    0*370 670  60    0*384 661  70    0
12005 08/17*402 647  80    0*419 627  85    0*434 608  85    0*448 588  85    0
12010 08/18*461 568  85    0*473 547  80    0*484 525  70    0*499 497  65    0
12010 08/18*461 568  85    0*473 547  80    0*484 525  70    0*495 497  65    0
                                                               ***      

12015 08/19*505 479  65    0*517 445  65    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
12015 08/19*505 474  65    0*517 445  65    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
                ***                   

12020 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Small track changes are introduced on
the 18th and 19th for more realistic translational velocities.  No 
observations of gale force or greater wind reports could be located for
this system (except for an indirect report from Bermuda of a "hurricane ...
moving northward between that station and Halifax" on the 15th).  Without 
data for substantiating changes to HURDAT's original intensity estimates, no
alterations are made to the intensity for this hurricane. 

********************************************************************************

12025 08/15/1893 M=19  6 SNBR= 307 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
12025 08/15/1893 M=19  6 SNBR= 318 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***                        *

12030 08/15*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*181 202  40    0*176 209  40    0
12035 08/16*172 216  40    0*168 224  40    0*165 232  40    0*162 241  40    0
12040 08/17*160 250  40    0*158 260  40    0*156 269  40    0*155 278  45    0
12045 08/18*154 286  45    0*154 294  50    0*155 303  50    0*156 313  55    0
12050 08/19*158 324  55    0*161 338  60    0*165 354  65    0*170 374  70    0
12055 08/20*175 396  75    0*180 419  80    0*186 440  85    0*192 458  90    0
12055 08/20*175 396  75    0*180 419  80    0*186 440  85    0*192 458  85    0
                                                                        **

12060 08/21*198 476  90    0*205 494  95    0*210 510 100    0*214 525 100    0
12060 08/21*198 476  85    0*205 494  85    0*210 510  85    0*214 525  85    0
                     **               **               **               **

12065 08/22*217 540 100    0*219 555 105  972*220 570 105    0*221 585 105    0
12065 08/22*217 540  85    0*219 555  85  972*220 570  90    0*221 585  95    0
                     **               **              ***              ***

12070 08/23*223 600 105    0*224 614 105    0*225 627 105    0*226 639 105    0
12070 08/23*223 600 100    0*224 614 105    0*225 627 105    0*226 639 105    0
                    ***

12075 08/24*228 649 105    0*229 659 105    0*230 670 105    0*232 681 105    0
12080 08/25*235 693 105    0*238 704 105    0*241 716 105    0*244 729 105    0
12085 08/26*247 742 105    0*251 756 105    0*255 769 105    0*261 780 105    0
12090 08/27*270 789 105    0*281 797 105    0*292 804 105    0*303 809 100    0
12090 08/27*270 789 105    0*280 798 105    0*290 803 105    0*297 806 100    0
                             *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

12095 08/28*315 812  95    0*327 812  90    0*340 810  85    0*354 805  80    0
12095 08/28*306 807 100  954*321 812  90  958*339 811  75    0*354 805  65    0
            *** *** ***  *** ***          *** *** ***  **               **

12100 08/29*368 796  75    0*384 782  70    0*402 760  70    0*420 737  65    0
12100 08/29*368 796  60    0*384 782  55    0*402 760  55    0*420 737  55    0
                     **               **               **               **

12105 08/30*443 707  60    0*466 677  60    0*490 647  55    0*501 630  55    0
12105 08/30*443 707  50    0*466 677  50    0*486 650  50    0*501 630  50    0
                     **               **      *** ***  **               **

12110 08/31*513 609  55    0*522 589  50    0*530 570  50    0*536 552  50    0
12110 08/31E513 609  50    0E522 589  50    0E530 570  50    0E536 552  50    0
           *         **     *                *                *

12115 09/01*541 535  50    0*545 518  50    0*547 500  50    0*545 481  50    0
12115 09/01E541 535  50    0E545 518  50    0E547 500  50    0E545 481  50    0
           *                *                *                *

12120 09/02*544 461  50    0*542 441  50    0*540 420  50    0*539 391  50    0
12120 09/02E544 461  50    0E542 441  50    0E540 420  50    0E539 391  50    0
           *                *                *                *

12125 HR       
12125 HR GA3 SC3 NC1 DFL1
         *** *** *** ****

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Track altered slightly based upon
analysis from Ho (1989).  A central pressure on the 22nd of 972 mb (was
already in best-track) suggests winds of 87 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 85 kt chosen for best track.  A peripheral pressure
of 965 mb (on the 26th) suggests winds of at least 90 kt from the 
subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt retained in best track.

For the intensity near landfall, the analysis from Ho is not accepted 
because of concerns of two aspects.  First the 18.2 foot storm tide 
reported for Savannah Beach likely also includes a large wave component as 
well.  B. Jarvinen (personal communication) estimates that the storm tide 
itself was closer to 11-13 foot, 2-3 foot of which was due to the astronomical
high tide.  (Thus a storm surge of 9-10 foot appears to be the most
credible estimate.)  A central pressure shortly after landfall of 958 mb 
(05Z on the 28th in Savannah) suggests winds of 96 kt from the subtropical 
wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt retained in best track since the center 
of the hurricane has already made landfall.  Ho discounted this central
pressure measurement from the Weather Bureau office in Savannah in favor of 
a measurement of 938 mb taken by a private citizen.  This 938 mb value
is dubious since it was not a calibrated instrument and that the eye of
the hurricane clearly went over the Savannah Weather Bureau office.  
Using the 958 mb central pressure, a central pressure of 954 mb 
at landfall is estimated via methodology from Ho et al. (1987) which
uses inland central pressure and time from landfall to the inland
central pressure measurement.  (In this case, the time was approximately
one hour for the hurricane to transit from the coast to Savannah - a
distance of 17 nmi.)  A landfall value of 954 mb for the central pressure
corresponds to 99 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship -
100 kt is chosen as the wind speed at landfall, since the RMW estimate
of 23 nmi (Ho 1989) is very close to the average value for that latitude
and central pressure (Vickery et al. 2000).  Thus the hurricane is
determined here to be a 100 kt Category 3 at landfall with a central
pressure around 954 mb, not the 931 mb of a Category 4 hurricane 
suggested by Ho (1989).  Winds after landfall were reduced to reflect
no observation of hurricane force north of North Carolina as described
in Partagas and Diaz (1996b).  Small track changes are introduced on
the 30th for more realistic translational velocities.  Storm is known as 
the "Sea Islands Hurricane" for its impact in Georgia and South Carolina.

1893/06 - 2006 REVISION:

12575 08/15/1893 M=19  6 SNBR= 318 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
12580 08/15*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*181 202  40    0*176 209  40    0*
12585 08/16*172 216  40    0*168 224  40    0*165 232  40    0*162 241  40    0*
12590 08/17*160 250  40    0*158 260  40    0*156 269  40    0*155 278  45    0*
12595 08/18*154 286  45    0*154 294  50    0*155 303  50    0*156 313  55    0*
12600 08/19*158 324  55    0*161 338  60    0*165 354  65    0*170 374  70    0*
12605 08/20*175 396  75    0*180 419  80    0*186 440  85    0*192 458  85    0*
12610 08/21*198 476  85    0*205 494  85    0*210 510  85    0*214 525  85    0*
12615 08/22*217 540  85    0*219 555  85  972*220 570  90    0*221 585  95    0*
12620 08/23*223 600 100    0*224 614 105    0*225 627 105    0*226 639 105    0*
12625 08/24*228 649 105    0*229 659 105    0*230 670 105    0*232 681 105    0*
12630 08/25*235 693 105    0*238 704 105    0*241 716 105    0*244 729 105    0*
12635 08/26*247 742 105    0*251 756 105    0*255 769 105    0*261 780 105    0*
12640 08/27*270 789 105    0*280 798 105    0*290 803 105    0*297 806 100    0*
12645 08/28*306 807 100  954*321 812  90  958*339 811  75    0*354 805  65    0*
12650 08/29*368 796  60    0*384 782  55    0*402 760  55    0*420 737  55    0*
12655 08/30*443 707  50    0*466 677  50    0*486 650  50    0*501 630  50    0*
12660 08/31E513 609  50    0E522 589  50    0E530 570  50    0E536 552  50    0*
12665 09/01E541 535  50    0E545 518  50    0E547 500  50    0E545 481  50    0*
12670 09/02E544 461  50    0E542 441  50    0E540 420  50    0E539 391  50    0*
12675 HR GA3 SC3 NC1DFL1                                                    
12675 HR GA3 SC3INC1DFL1                                                    
                ****

Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the North 
Carolina hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along 
North Carolina's Atlantic coast.

********************************************************************************


12415 08/20/1893 M=10  7 SNBR= 308 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
12415 08/20/1893 M=10  7 SNBR= 319 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

12420 08/20*  0   0   0    0*118 272  35    0*120 280  40    0*123 287  45    0
12425 08/21*126 294  45    0*129 301  50    0*132 308  55    0*136 315  60    0
12430 08/22*140 321  65    0*144 328  70    0*148 334  75    0*151 340  75    0
12435 08/23*154 346  80    0*158 353  80    0*161 359  85    0*165 365  85    0
12440 08/24*170 371  85    0*175 378  85    0*181 384  85    0*187 390  85    0
12445 08/25*193 396  85    0*201 401  85    0*210 407  85    0*221 411  85    0
12450 08/26*233 414  85    0*246 413  85    0*260 410  85    0*274 403  85    0
12455 08/27*289 391  85    0*305 376  85    0*321 359  85    0*338 340  85    0
12460 08/28*353 323  85    0*373 305  80    0*400 280  75    0*409 265  70    0
12460 08/28*353 323  85    0*373 305  80    0*393 285  75    0*409 265  70    0
                                              *** ***

12465 08/29*414 251  65    0*418 240  60    0*420 230  55    0*421 216  50    0
12470 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).  Small track changes are introduced on the 28th for more 
realistic translational velocities.  

********************************************************************************

12190 09/04/1893 M= 6  8 SNBR= 309 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
12190 09/04/1893 M= 6  8 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***                        *

12195 09/04*  0   0   0    0*184 853  35    0*190 861  40    0*195 870  45    0
12200 09/05*201 879  55    0*209 887  60    0*221 899  65    0*229 908  70    0
12200 09/05*201 879  40    0*209 887  35    0*221 899  45    0*229 908  55    0
                     **               **               **               **

12205 09/06*240 918  80    0*252 925  85    0*269 930  85    0*274 928  85    0
12205 09/06*240 918  65    0*252 925  75    0*264 930  85    0*274 928  85    0
                     **               **      ***

12210 09/07*279 923  85    0*283 919  85    0*290 913  85    0*298 905  80    0
12210 09/07*279 923  85    0*283 919  85    0*290 913  85    0*298 905  70    0
                                                                        **

12215 09/08*307 900  75    0*317 894  70    0*328 890  65    0*330 889  60    0
12215 09/08*307 900  55    0*317 894  45    0*325 890  40    0*330 889  35    0
                     **               **      ***      **               **

12220 09/09*333 888  55    0*340 887  45    0*348 885  40    0*351 885  35    0
12220 09/09*333 888  35    0*340 887  30    0*348 885  30    0*351 885  30    0
                     **               **               **               **

12225 HR        
12225 HR LA2
         ***

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds from the 5th to the 6th reduced
to take into account moving over the Yucatan of Mexico.  Observations
show no evidence for hurricane intensity for nearly a full day over
the southeast U.S.  Winds reduced inland via the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
inland decay model modified to allow slightly less weakening while
transit over the swamps of southeast Louisiana.  Small track changes are 
introduced on the 6th and the 8th for more realistic translational velocities. 

1893/08 - 2011 REVISION:

12740 09/04/1893 M= 6  8 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
12745 09/04*  0   0   0    0*184 853  35    0*190 861  40    0*195 870  45    0*
12750 09/05*201 879  40    0*209 887  35    0*221 899  45    0*229 908  55    0*
12755 09/06*240 918  65    0*252 925  75    0*264 930  85    0*274 928  85    0*
12760 09/07*279 923  85    0*283 919  85    0*290 913  85    0*298 905  70    0*
12765 09/08*307 900  55    0*317 894  45    0*325 890  40    0*330 889  35    0*
12770 09/09*333 888  35    0*340 887  30    0*348 885  30    0*351 885  30    0*
12775 HR LA2                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
8-9/7/1893     1400Z 29.2N  91.1W   85kt  2    ---   (973mb)   LA2
8-9/7/1893     1400Z 29.2N  91.1W   85kt  2    ---   (970mb)   LA2
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as an 85 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb - 
for an 85 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value. 

********************************************************************************

12230 09/25/1893 M=21  9 SNBR= 310 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
12230 09/25/1893 M=21  9 SNBR= 321 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***                        *

12235 09/25*  0   0   0    0*116 250  35    0*116 258  40    0*117 267  45    0
12240 09/26*117 275  50    0*117 283  55    0*117 291  60    0*117 298  65    0
12240 09/26*117 275  45    0*117 283  45    0*117 291  50    0*117 298  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

12245 09/27*117 305  70    0*117 311  75    0*117 319  80    0*117 328  85    0
12245 09/27*117 305  55    0*117 311  55    0*117 319  60    0*117 328  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

12250 09/28*117 336  90    0*118 345  95    0*118 354  95    0*118 363 100    0
12250 09/28*117 336  65    0*118 345  65    0*118 354  65    0*118 363  65    0
                     **               **               **              ***

12255 09/29*118 372 100    0*118 381 105    0*118 390 105    0*118 398 105    0
12255 09/29*118 372  65    0*118 381  65    0*118 390  65    0*118 398  65    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

12260 09/30*119 405 105    0*119 412 105    0*120 420 105    0*121 430 105    0
12260 09/30*119 405  65    0*119 412  65    0*120 420  65    0*121 430  70    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

12265 10/01*123 439 105    0*125 449 105    0*128 459 105    0*130 469 105    0
12265 10/01*123 439  75    0*125 449  80    0*128 459  85    0*130 469  90    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

12270 10/02*133 480 105    0*136 490 105    0*140 500 105    0*144 509 105    0
12270 10/02*133 480  95    0*136 490 100    0*140 500 105    0*144 509 105    0
                    ***              *** 

12275 10/03*148 516 105    0*152 522 105    0*157 527 105    0*163 532 105    0
12280 10/04*169 537 105    0*176 542 105    0*182 547 105    0*188 552 105    0
12285 10/05*193 557 105    0*198 562 105    0*203 567 105    0*208 572 105    0
12290 10/06*212 577 105    0*215 582 105    0*218 587 105    0*220 592 105    0
12295 10/07*222 598 105    0*224 604 105    0*226 610 105    0*228 617 105    0
12300 10/08*229 625 105    0*231 633 105    0*233 642 105    0*235 651 105    0
12305 10/09*237 660 105    0*239 669 105    0*241 678 105    0*243 687 105    0
12310 10/10*245 695 105    0*248 703 105    0*250 712 105    0*252 722 105    0
12315 10/11*255 732 105    0*258 742 105    0*261 752 105    0*264 762 105    0
12320 10/12*268 771 100    0*272 781 100    0*276 790 100    0*282 797  95    0
12320 10/12*268 771 105    0*272 781 105    0*276 790 105    0*282 797 105    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

12325 10/13*293 801  95    0*309 801  90    0*329 797  85    0*357 793  80    0
12325 10/13*293 806 105    0*308 808 105    0*326 797 105  955*350 786  80    0
                *** ***      *** *** ***      ***     ***  *** *** ***  **

12330 10/14*391 786  70    0*427 776  60    0*457 764  55    0*483 748  50    0
12330 10/14*387 781  65    0*427 776  60    0E457 764  60    0E483 748  60    0
            *** ***  **                      *         **     *         **

12335 10/15*507 729  45    0*529 707  40    0*549 682  35    0*570 660  35    0
12335 10/15E507 729  60    0E529 707  60    0E549 682  50    0E570 660  40    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **
12340 HR                    
12340 HR SC3 NC2 VA1                   
         *** *** ***

The only minor change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), is to use the track 
analyzed by Ho (1989) near the landfall in the United States.  Partagas 
and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small track changes from that shown in
Neumann et al. (1999).  It is to be noted, however, that such a long
slow translational speed of this hurricane before recurvature is very
unusual and does open the possibility that there were actually two 
separate tropical cyclones instead of just the one indicated here.  Until
more definitive information is uncovered, this will be retained relatively
unchanged from Neumann et al. (1999).  A reduction in winds from the 28th 
until the 2nd was included to make it consistent with available observations, 
which indicate at most a minimal (Category 1) hurricane on these dates.  A 
peripheral pressure of 972 mb (21Z on the 12th) suggests winds of at least 
84 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship.  Peripheral pressures 
(possibly central pressures) of 962 mb (on the 13th) and 959 mb (16Z on
the 13th) suggests winds of at least 93 and 95 kt, respectively, from
the wind-pressure relationship.  Ho (1989) utilized these reports and
an estimate of the RMW of 15 nmi to obtain an estimated central pressure
of 955 mb.  This supports winds of 99 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship.  Given the small RMW for this latitude and central pressure,
winds in the best track are boosted slightly to 105 kt at landfall.
Storm tide values of 14 foot are reported in Ho (1989) for Pawley's Island.
Intensity increased after landfall on the 14th and 15th due to indications
that it became a strong extratropical storm in Canada.

1893/09 - 2006 REVISION:

12780 09/25/1893 M=21  9 SNBR= 321 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
12785 09/25*  0   0   0    0*116 250  35    0*116 258  40    0*117 267  45    0*
12790 09/26*117 275  45    0*117 283  45    0*117 291  50    0*117 298  50    0*
12795 09/27*117 305  55    0*117 311  55    0*117 319  60    0*117 328  60    0*
12800 09/28*117 336  65    0*118 345  65    0*118 354  65    0*118 363  65    0*
12805 09/29*118 372  65    0*118 381  65    0*118 390  65    0*118 398  65    0*
12810 09/30*119 405  65    0*119 412  65    0*120 420  65    0*121 430  70    0*
12815 10/01*123 439  75    0*125 449  80    0*128 459  85    0*130 469  90    0*
12820 10/02*133 480  95    0*136 490 100    0*140 500 105    0*144 509 105    0*
12825 10/03*148 516 105    0*152 522 105    0*157 527 105    0*163 532 105    0*
12830 10/04*169 537 105    0*176 542 105    0*182 547 105    0*188 552 105    0*
12835 10/05*193 557 105    0*198 562 105    0*203 567 105    0*208 572 105    0*
12840 10/06*212 577 105    0*215 582 105    0*218 587 105    0*220 592 105    0*
12845 10/07*222 598 105    0*224 604 105    0*226 610 105    0*228 617 105    0*
12850 10/08*229 625 105    0*231 633 105    0*233 642 105    0*235 651 105    0*
12855 10/09*237 660 105    0*239 669 105    0*241 678 105    0*243 687 105    0*
12860 10/10*245 695 105    0*248 703 105    0*250 712 105    0*252 722 105    0*
12865 10/11*255 732 105    0*258 742 105    0*261 752 105    0*264 762 105    0*
12870 10/12*268 771 105    0*272 781 105    0*276 790 105    0*282 797 105    0*
12875 10/13*293 806 105    0*308 808 105    0*326 797 105  955*350 786  80    0*
12880 10/14*387 781  65    0*427 776  60    0E457 764  60    0E483 748  60    0*
12885 10/15E507 729  60    0E529 707  60    0E549 682  50    0E570 660  40    0*
12890 HR SC3 NC2 VA1                                                            
12890 HR SC3 NC2IVA1                                                            
                ****
             
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Virginia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Virginia's
Atlantic coast.

********************************************************************************


12345 09/27/1893 M= 9 10 SNBR= 311 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
12345 09/27/1893 M= 9 10 SNBR= 322 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=4
                               ***

12350 09/27*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*164 817  35    0*170 826  40    0
12355 09/28*177 834  55    0*183 842  65    0*190 850  75    0*197 858  85    0
12360 09/29*203 865  85    0*210 873  80    0*217 880  80    0*224 887  80    0
12365 09/30*231 892  85    0*238 897  85    0*245 902  85    0*251 906  85    0
12370 10/01*257 908  85    0*262 910  85    0*269 910  85    0*276 909  85    0
12370 10/01*257 908  85    0*262 910  85    0*269 910  95    0*276 909 105    0
                                                       **              ***

12375 10/02*284 905  85    0*291 900  85    0*299 893  80  956*305 887  75    0
12375 10/02*284 905 115    0*291 900 115  948*299 893  95    0*305 887  85    0
                    ***              ***  ***          **  ***          **

12380 10/03*313 878  65    0*320 867  55    0*327 855  50    0*334 839  45    0
12385 10/04*340 818  40    0*346 797  40    0*351 780  35    0*354 760  35    0
12390 10/05*353 740  35    0*352 722  35    0*350 704  35    0*  0   0   0    0
12395 HR
12395 HR LA4 MS2 AL2
         *** *** ***

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Ho (1989) provided central pressure
estimates for the two U.S. landfalls that this hurricane made.  For landfall
in Mississippi, a central pressure of 956 mb was derived from a peripheral
pressure measurement of 970 mb (at 16Z on the 2nd) and an estimated 
17 nmi RMW.  Ho also indicated that there was a 20 foot storm tide reported 
in Caminadaville, Louisiana and 10-12 foot storm tide in Pass Christian, 
Mississippi.  However, examination of the pressure measurements reveals 
that the 970 mb was likely a true central pressure value, not a peripheral
observation.  (However, this pressure measurement is not included above
since the timing was at 1530 UTC, not within the +/-2 hours of synoptic
time needed for inclusion in HURDAT.  This value is though included in the
U.S. landfalling table.)  This central pressure corresponds to 89 kt from the 
Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship.  Since Ho's reported RMW is smaller 
than what would be expected on average for this central pressure and 
latitude (Vickery et al. 2000), a windspeed of 95 kt is chosen for the best 
track.  This places the storm as a landfalling Category 2 in Mississippi
and Alabama, though near the lower boundary of Category 3.
For landfall in Louisiana, there also appear to be concerns with Ho's (1989)
estimate of intensity.  Ho used an inland decay pressure model (Ho et al. 
1987) to obtain an estimate of 940 mb central pressure.  (The south 
Florida inland decay pressure model was utilized for this particular 
hurricane, since this is more appropriate given its track over marsh-covered 
south Louisiana.)  Using instead the landfall value at Mississippi of
970 mb central pressure, an estimate of 948 mb at landfall in Louisiana is
obtained.  This central pressure corresponds to 112 kt from the Gulf of 
Mexico wind-pressure relationship.  Since the Ho estimated RMW at the 
Louisiana landfall (12 nmi) is smaller than what is average for this central 
pressure and latitude, a maximum sustained wind at landfall in Louisiana is 
estimated at 115 kt.  SLOSH runs with these central pressure and RMW values 
(B. Jarvinen, personal communication), however, can simulate a maximum storm 
tide of only about 8 feet at Caminadaville - much smaller than supposedly 
observed.  As this island has a maximum height of 5 feet above mean sea 
level and is completely overtopped by storm surges from strong hurricanes, 
the 20 foot value is suspect.  115 kt at landfall in Louisiana makes this a 
Category 4 hurricane, though it is near the upper boundary of Category 3.  
The hurricane is known as the "Chenier Caminanda Hurricane" for its impacts 
in Louisiana.

1893/08 - 2011 REVISION:

12740 09/04/1893 M= 6  8 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
12745 09/04*  0   0   0    0*184 853  35    0*190 861  40    0*195 870  45    0*
12750 09/05*201 879  40    0*209 887  35    0*221 899  45    0*229 908  55    0*
12755 09/06*240 918  65    0*252 925  75    0*264 930  85    0*274 928  85    0*
12760 09/07*279 923  85    0*283 919  85    0*290 913  85    0*298 905  70    0*
12765 09/08*307 900  55    0*317 894  45    0*325 890  40    0*330 889  35    0*
12770 09/09*333 888  35    0*340 887  30    0*348 885  30    0*351 885  30    0*
12775 HR LA2                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
8-9/7/1893     1400Z 29.2N  91.1W   85kt  2    ---   (973mb)   LA2
8-9/7/1893     1400Z 29.2N  91.1W   85kt  2    ---   (970mb)   LA2
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as an 85 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb - 
for an 85 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

12400 10/20/1893 M= 4 11 SNBR= 312 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
12400 10/20/1893 M= 4 11 SNBR= 323 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

12405 10/20*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*180 820  35    0*195 806  45    0
12405 10/20*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*180 820  30    0*195 806  30    0
                                                       **               **

12410 10/21*210 794  50    0*225 785  50    0*240 780  45    0*256 777  45    0
12410 10/21*210 794  30    0*225 785  30    0*240 780  35    0*256 777  40    0
                     **               **               **               **

12415 10/22*272 778  50    0*288 778  50    0*305 776  50    0*323 771  50    0
12415 10/22*272 778  45    0*288 778  50    0*305 776  50    0*323 771  50    0
                     **

12420 10/23*342 760  50    0*363 751  45    0*384 759  40    0*400 780  35    0
12425 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Perez (2000 and personal communication) 
indicate that this system was not of tropical storm intensity until
north of Cuba.  Thus intensities reduced on the 20th through the 22nd.

********************************************************************************

12430 11/05/1893 M= 6 12 SNBR= 313 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
12430 11/05/1893 M= 8 12 SNBR= 324 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                    *          ***                  *

12435 11/05*  0   0   0    0*178 797  35    0*186 798  40    0*197 797  50    0
12435 11/05*267 708  35    0*268 717  35    0*270 725  40    0*272 731  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

12440 11/06*208 795  50    0*220 792  45    0*233 789  45    0*247 785  45    0
12440 11/06*274 736  50    0*277 741  45    0*280 745  45    0*284 749  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

12445 11/07*260 782  50    0*273 778  50    0*287 774  50    0*301 770  50    0
12445 11/07*291 753  50    0*298 755  50    0*305 757  55    0*315 759  55    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

12450 11/08*314 767  50    0*328 764  50    0*341 760  50    0*352 753  50    0
12450 11/08*325 759  60    0*336 757  60    0*345 753  60    0*356 746  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

12455 11/09*359 747  45    0*364 739  45    0*368 731  40    0*373 719  35    0
12455 11/09*366 736  55    0*372 727  55    0*377 713  50    0*384 691  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

12460 11/10*379 705  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
12460 11/10E391 663  45    0E396 632  45    0E400 605  40    0E404 576  40    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

(11th and 12th are new additions to HURDAT.)
12462 11/11E406 548  40    0E408 521  40    0E410 490  40    0E410 469  40    0
12464 11/12E410 449  40    0E410 426  40    0E410 405  40    0E410 379  40    0

12465 TS   

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track changes are found 
to be reasonable.  Winds increased from the 7th to the 9th based upon wind 
measurements along U.S. coast.  Storm did not actually hit land as per best 
track positions and track book, so "XING=0" is utilized.

********************************************************************************

1893 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned two additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) May 12-13, 1893:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) July 6, 1893: Damage reports in Cuba leave it uncertain if system was a
   tornado or tropical storm.

********************************************************************************

12466 06/06/1894 M= 4  1 SNBR= 325 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
12467 06/06*190 774  35    0*190 778  35    0*190 783  35    0*190 789  35    0
12468 06/07*191 794  35    0*192 801  35    0*193 807  35    0*194 812  35    0
12469 06/08*195 821  35    0*196 827  35    0*197 833  35    0*199 838  35    0
12469 06/09*201 844  35    0*204 850  35    0*207 855  35    0*210 860  35    0
12469 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented 
tropical storm. 

********************************************************************************

12470 08/05/1894 M= 4  1 SNBR= 314 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
12470 08/05/1894 M= 5  2 SNBR= 326 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                    *  *       *** 

12475 08/05*  0   0   0    0*264 893  35    0*270 890  40    0*275 886  40    0
12480 08/06*279 882  45    0*283 879  50    0*287 876  50    0*290 874  50    0
12480 08/06*279 882  45    0*283 879  50    0*287 876  50    0*290 875  50    0
                                                                   ***

12485 08/07*294 872  50    0*297 871  50    0*300 871  50    0*304 872  50    0
12485 08/07*294 874  50    0*297 874  50    0*300 875  50    0*303 876  50    0
                ***              ***              ***          *** ***

12490 08/08*308 874  45    0*312 876  40    0*316 880  35    0*318 885  30    0
12490 08/08*306 877  45    0*309 882  40    0*310 887  35    0*311 891  30    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

(9th of August newly added to HURDAT.)
12492 08/09*312 895  30    0*313 899  25    0*315 905  25    0*317 915  25    0

12495 TS       

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm 
number 1.

********************************************************************************


12500 08/30/1894 M=11  2 SNBR= 315 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
12500 08/30/1894 M=11  3 SNBR= 327 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

12505 08/30*132 348  35    0*134 360  35    0*136 375  40    0*138 387  40    0
12510 08/31*140 399  45    0*142 411  45    0*144 423  45    0*147 435  50    0
12515 09/01*149 447  50    0*152 458  55    0*158 470  55    0*165 482  60    0
12520 09/02*172 495  65    0*179 508  65    0*186 521  70    0*193 533  75    0
12525 09/03*200 545  75    0*207 555  80    0*214 564  80    0*221 571  85    0
12530 09/04*227 576  85    0*234 580  85    0*240 584  85    0*247 588  85    0
12535 09/05*254 592  85    0*261 595  85    0*268 597  85    0*276 597  85    0
12540 09/06*284 595  85    0*293 592  85    0*301 588  85    0*309 583  85    0
12540 09/06*284 595  90    0*293 592  95    0*301 588 100    0*309 583 100    0
                     **               **              ***              ***

12545 09/07*318 577  85    0*327 569  85    0*336 560  85    0*347 549  85    0
12545 09/07*318 577 100    0*327 569 100    0*336 560 100    0*347 549 100    0
                    ***              ***              ***              *** 

12550 09/08*362 534  85    0*380 516  85    0*400 496  85    0*423 473  80    0
12550 09/08*362 534 100  948*380 516 100    0*400 496 100    0*423 473  90    0
                    ***  ***         ***              ***               **

12555 09/09*450 445  80    0*480 414  75    0*513 380  70    0*540 357  70    0
12555 09/09*450 445  80    0*480 414  75    0*513 380  70    0E540 357  70    0
                                                              *

12560 HR  

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 2.  Pressure 
measurement (may have been a central pressure) of 948 mb (on the 8th) suggests 
winds of at least 98 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt 
chosen for best track.  Winds increased from the 6th to the 8th accordingly,
as hurricanes tend to reach maximum intensity at or just after recurvature.

********************************************************************************

12565 09/18/1894 M=13  3 SNBR= 316 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
12565 09/18/1894 M=14  4 SNBR= 328 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                   **  *       ***                        *

12570 09/18*120 503  35    0*122 511  40    0*124 522  45    0*126 531  50    0
12570 09/18*134 505  35    0*134 510  40    0*135 517  45    0*136 526  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

12575 09/19*128 540  55    0*131 549  65    0*133 558  70    0*135 567  80    0
12575 09/19*137 535  55    0*139 545  65    0*140 555  70    0*141 563  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

12580 09/20*138 577  85    0*141 588  90    0*145 599  95    0*149 612 100    0
12580 09/20*143 575  85    0*145 586  90    0*147 597  95    0*149 611 100    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***              ***

12585 09/21*153 627 105    0*158 642 105    0*162 655 105    0*166 667 105    0
12590 09/22*169 678 100    0*173 690  95    0*178 702  90    0*183 715  85    0
12590 09/22*170 679 100    0*176 693  95    0*183 710  90    0*188 727  75    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

12595 09/23*188 728  85    0*194 740  85    0*199 753  85    0*204 766  85    0
12595 09/23*194 743  80    0*199 758  85    0*205 770  70    0*209 782  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

12600 09/24*210 779  85    0*215 791  80    0*220 804  75    0*227 812  70    0
12600 09/24*214 794  70    0*218 806  70    0*225 815  65    0*229 817  60  994
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  ***

12605 09/25*236 817  75    0*247 819  90    0*257 820 105    0*267 819 105    0
12605 09/25*234 819  65    0*240 820  70    0*250 820  80  985*263 820  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***     ***  *** *** *** ***

12610 09/26*276 817  95    0*286 815  80    0*295 812  70    0*305 809  70    0
12610 09/26*276 817  75    0*286 815  60    0*295 812  65    0*304 810  70    0
                     **               **               **      *** ***

12615 09/27*314 806  75    0*324 803  75    0*332 798  80    0*338 792  80    0
12615 09/27*312 809  75    0*320 807  80    0*330 803  70    0*337 794  65    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

12620 09/28*342 786  80    0*346 781  70    0*351 774  60    0*355 767  60    0
12620 09/28*340 785  60    0*344 776  60    0*347 767  60    0*352 763  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** *** 

12625 09/29*360 761  65    0*365 756  65    0*370 750  70    0*375 745  70    0
12625 09/29*358 758  60    0*365 754  70    0*370 750  75    0*375 745  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **               

12630 09/30*381 739  65    0*386 734  50    0*392 729  35    0*398 723  30    0
12630 09/30*384 739  65    0*392 732  50    0*397 725  40    0*402 715  35    0
            ***              *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(October 1st new to HURDAT.)
12632 10/01*407 700  35    0*412 676  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0

12635 HR
12635 HRBFL2DFL1 SC1 VA1
        ******** *** ***

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm 
number 3. Peak winds of 105 kt in the eastern Caribbean are retained, since 
the wind-caused damage in Puerto Rico is consistent with a strong hurricane
passing south of the island (Boose et al. 2003).  85 kt retained at landfall 
in Cuba - agreeing with assessment by Perez (2000).  Changes made to the track
near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000).  A 
central pressure of 994 mb (21Z on the 24th) suggests winds of 58 kt from the 
southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt utilized.  Central pressure of 
985 mb (11Z on the 25th) suggests winds of 71 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 80 kt used due to observed winds in Key West.  A 
peripheral pressure of 986 mb (07Z on the 27th) suggests winds of at least 
68 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt utilized in best 
track at 06Z and at landfall in South Carolina. A storm tide of 10' was 
observed in Charleston (Partagas and Diaz 1996b).  Landfall in southwest 
Florida is suggested to be at a windspeed of 90 kt (with an estimated central 
pressure of 975 mb) given the intensification from a 60 kt tropical storm (with
994 mb central pressure) over Havana to a 80 kt Category 1 hurricane (with 
985 mb central pressure) over Key West.  Analysis of historical tropical storms
and hurricanes impacting Georgia and Northeast Florida by Sandrik (2001) 
suggests that the hurricane had also impacted Northeast Florida with Category 1
hurricane conditions as it reintensified quickly as it left the Northeast 
Florida coast.  System regained hurricane intensity again right as it made 
oceanfall from North Carolina, as shown in the sustained hurricane force winds
in Cape Henry, Virginia (Roth and Cobb 2001).  Hurricane is known as 
"San Mateo" for its impacts in Puerto Rico.  Hurricane is known as "Huracan 
de Sagua la Grande" for its impacts in Cuba.

********************************************************************************

12640 10/01/1894 M=12  4 SNBR= 317 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
12640 10/01/1894 M=12  5 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                       *       ***                        *

12645 10/01*125 791  35    0*130 795  35    0*135 798  40    0*140 802  40    0
12650 10/02*145 806  45    0*149 809  45    0*154 813  50    0*159 816  55    0
12655 10/03*163 820  60    0*167 823  60    0*172 826  65    0*177 830  70    0
12660 10/04*183 834  75    0*189 838  75    0*195 842  80    0*200 845  85    0
12665 10/05*206 849  90    0*212 853  90    0*217 856  95    0*223 859  95    0
12665 10/05*206 849  90    0*212 853  90    0*217 856  95    0*220 859  95    0
                                                               ***

12670 10/06*228 862 100    0*234 865 100    0*240 867 105    0*247 869 105    0
12670 10/06*225 862 100    0*230 865 100    0*237 870 105    0*243 875 105    0
            ***              ***              *** ***          *** ***

12675 10/07*255 870 105    0*264 870 105    0*271 870 105    0*276 869 105    0
12675 10/07*247 877 105    0*252 881 105    0*257 883 105    0*261 884 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

12680 10/08*279 867 105    0*282 864 105    0*286 861 100    0*292 856  95    0
12680 10/08*266 884 105    0*271 884 105    0*277 883 105    0*287 877 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** *** ***      *** *** ***

12685 10/09*300 848  90    0*310 836  80    0*322 822  75    0*339 797  70    0
12685 10/09*297 863 105    0*307 847  85    0*317 830  70    0*330 803  60    0
            *** *** ***      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

12690 10/10*355 775  65    0*374 755  65    0*394 740  60    0*420 719  55    0
12690 10/10*352 775  60    0*374 755  65    0*394 740  75    0*420 719  55    0
            ***      **                                **                            
12695 10/11*448 702  55    0*476 689  50    0*500 673  45    0*520 662  40    0
12695 10/11E448 702  45    0E476 689  45    0E500 673  45    0E520 662  40    0
           *         **     *         **     *                *

12700 10/12*537 652  35    0*551 643  35    0*563 635  35    0*  0   0   0    0
12700 10/12E537 652  35    0E551 643  35    0E563 635  35    0*  0   0   0    0
           *                *                *

12705 HR    
12705 HRAFL3 GA1 NY1 RI1
        **** *** *** ***

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm 
number 4.  Peripheral pressure of 961 mb (14 UTC on the 8th) suggests winds of
at least 99 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt in 
best track used here and at landfall in Florida.  Peripheral pressure of 984 mb 
(on the 10th) suggests winds of at least 69 kt from the northern wind-
pressure relationship - 75 kt chosen for best track and landfall in 
New York/Rhode Island, which is also supported by wind observations at Block 
Island, R.I.

1894/05 - 2006 REVISION:

13240 10/01/1894 M=12  5 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
13245 10/01*125 791  35    0*130 795  35    0*135 798  40    0*140 802  40    0*
13250 10/02*145 806  45    0*149 809  45    0*154 813  50    0*159 816  55    0*
13255 10/03*163 820  60    0*167 823  60    0*172 826  65    0*177 830  70    0*
13260 10/04*183 834  75    0*189 838  75    0*195 842  80    0*200 845  85    0*
13265 10/05*206 849  90    0*212 853  90    0*217 856  95    0*220 859  95    0*
13270 10/06*225 862 100    0*230 865 100    0*237 870 105    0*243 875 105    0*
13275 10/07*247 877 105    0*252 881 105    0*257 883 105    0*261 884 105    0*
13280 10/08*266 884 105    0*271 884 105    0*277 883 105    0*287 877 105    0*
13285 10/09*297 863 105    0*307 847  85    0*317 830  70    0*330 803  60    0*
13290 10/10*352 775  60    0*374 755  65    0*394 740  75    0*420 719  55    0*
13295 10/11E448 702  45    0E476 689  45    0E500 673  45    0E520 662  40    0*
13300 10/12E537 652  35    0E551 643  35    0E563 635  35    0*  0   0   0    0*
13305 HRAFL3 GA1 NY1 RI1                                                        
13305 HRAFL3IGA1 NY1 RI1 CT1
            ****         ***

Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's
Atlantic coast.  Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and 
James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone also
caused a Category 1 hurricane impact in Connecticut based upon the
existing track and intensity in HURDAT.

1894/05 - 2011 REVISION:

13240 10/01/1894 M=12  5 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
13245 10/01*125 791  35    0*130 795  35    0*135 798  40    0*140 802  40    0*
13250 10/02*145 806  45    0*149 809  45    0*154 813  50    0*159 816  55    0*
13255 10/03*163 820  60    0*167 823  60    0*172 826  65    0*177 830  70    0*
13260 10/04*183 834  75    0*189 838  75    0*195 842  80    0*200 845  85    0*
13265 10/05*206 849  90    0*212 853  90    0*217 856  95    0*220 859  95    0*
13270 10/06*225 862 100    0*230 865 100    0*237 870 105    0*243 875 105    0*
13275 10/07*247 877 105    0*252 881 105    0*257 883 105    0*261 884 105    0*
13280 10/08*266 884 105    0*271 884 105    0*277 883 105    0*287 877 105    0*
13285 10/09*297 863 105    0*307 847  85    0*317 830  70    0*330 803  60    0*
13290 10/10*352 775  60    0*374 755  65    0*394 740  75    0*420 719  55    0*
13295 10/11E448 702  45    0E476 689  45    0E500 673  45    0E520 662  40    0*
13300 10/12E537 652  35    0E551 643  35    0E563 635  35    0*  0   0   0    0*
13305 HRAFL3IGA1 NY1 RI1 CT1

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
5-10/9/1894    0300Z 30.2N  85.5W  105kt  3    ---   (955mb)   AFL3,IGA1
5-10/9/1894    0300Z 30.2N  85.5W  105kt  3    ---   (950mb)   AFL3,IGA1
                                                      ***

5-10/10/1894   1500Z 40.7N  72.9W   75kt  1    ---   (978mb)   NY1,CT1,RI1

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 105 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 955 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 950 mb - 
for a 105 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************


12710 10/11/1894 M=10  5 SNBR= 318 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
12710 10/11/1894 M=10  6 SNBR= 330 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

12715 10/11*108 577  35    0*113 583  40    0*120 590  40    0*126 597  45    0
12715 10/11*108 577  35    0*113 583  45    0*120 590  55    0*126 597  65    0
                                      **               **               **

12720 10/12*132 603  50    0*138 609  55    0*145 615  60    0*152 621  65    0
12720 10/12*132 603  75    0*138 609  85    0*145 615  85    0*149 621  85    0
                     **               **               **      ***      **

12725 10/13*159 626  70    0*166 631  75    0*173 636  80    0*180 640  85    0
12725 10/13*154 628  85    0*159 634  85    0*167 640  85    0*175 645  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***

12730 10/14*187 644  85    0*194 648  85    0*201 652  85    0*208 656  85    0
12730 10/14*181 649  85    0*187 652  85    0*193 655  85    0*202 658  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***        

12735 10/15*216 659  85    0*224 662  85    0*231 665  85    0*238 667  85    0
12735 10/15*209 660  85    0*217 662  85    0*225 665  85    0*231 665  85    0
            *** ***          ***              ***              *** *** 

12740 10/16*244 668  85    0*251 669  85    0*258 669  85    0*266 668  85    0
12740 10/16*237 666  95    0*243 666 105    0*250 667 115    0*261 667 115  931
            *** ***  **      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***  ***

12745 10/17*274 666  85    0*282 663  85    0*290 657  85    0*298 650  85    0
12745 10/17*274 666 115    0*282 663 115    0*290 657 110    0*300 647 105    0
                    ***              ***              ***      *** *** ***

12750 10/18*305 641  85    0*312 631  85    0*320 620  85    0*329 608  85    0
12750 10/18*311 632 100    0*323 617  95    0*333 603  90    0*341 593  85    0
            *** *** ***      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***

12755 10/19*340 595  85    0*351 582  85    0*360 570  85    0*367 563  80    0
12755 10/19*348 584  85    0*354 577  85    0*360 570  85    0*367 563  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***            

12760 10/20*373 558  80    0*377 555  75    0*380 552  70    0*384 548  70    0
12765 HR                    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm 
number 5.  Winds increased from the 11th to the 13th based upon destruction 
in St. Lucia.  Central pressure of 931 mb (21Z on the 16th) suggests winds of 
116 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 115 kt chosen for 
best track.  Winds increased from the 16th to the 18th accordingly.  Full 
lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about 
its decay after the 20th.

********************************************************************************

12770 10/21/1894 M=11  6 SNBR= 319 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
12770 10/21/1894 M=11  7 SNBR= 331 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

12775 10/21*  0   0   0    0*210 603  35    0*215 610  40    0*218 617  40    0
12780 10/22*221 624  45    0*224 632  45    0*227 640  50    0*228 649  50    0
12785 10/23*229 659  55    0*232 670  60    0*235 681  65    0*241 695  65    0
12790 10/24*247 711  70    0*254 728  75    0*261 740  75    0*268 745  80    0
12790 10/24*245 706  70    0*249 718  75    0*255 730  75    0*258 735  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

12795 10/25*274 746  85    0*281 744  85    0*288 741  85    0*296 737  85    0
12795 10/25*262 742  85    0*266 743  85    0*270 740  85    0*280 726  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

12800 10/26*305 732  85    0*317 724  85    0*331 710  85    0*351 689  85    0
12800 10/26*290 710  85    0*300 695  85    0*310 680  85    0*329 654  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

12805 10/27*378 662  85    0*403 632  85    0*421 600  85    0*433 563  85    0
12805 10/27*349 624  85    0*371 594  85    0*390 570  85    0*411 544  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

12810 10/28*443 522  85    0*451 484  85    0*458 458  85    0*464 441  85    0
12810 10/28*432 515  90    0*447 487  90    0*458 458  95    0*464 441  95    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **               **

12815 10/29*470 426  85    0*476 413  85    0*481 400  85    0*486 388  85    0
12815 10/29*470 426  95  955*476 413  90    0E481 400  85    0E486 388  85    0
                     **  ***          **     *                *

12820 10/30*490 376  85    0*494 363  80    0*499 350  80    0*505 334  75    0
12820 10/30E490 376  85    0E494 363  80    0E499 350  80    0E505 334  75    0
           *                *                *                *

12825 10/31*513 315  70    0*521 293  65    0*530 270  65    0*  0   0   0    0
12825 10/31E513 315  70    0E521 293  65    0E530 270  65    0*  0   0   0    0
           *                *                *

12830 HR                    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 6.
These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Peripheral pressure (possible
central pressure) of 975 mb on the 28th suggests winds of at least 78 kt from 
the northern wind-pressure relationship - winds kept at 85 kt in best track.  
A possible central pressure of 955 mb on the 29th suggests winds of at least 
93 kt - 95 kt chosen for best track.  Winds are increased accordingly on the 
28th and 29th.

*******************************************************************************

1894 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned three additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) August 27-31, 1894:  Gale observations found, but likely was an 
   extratropical storm.
2) September 16-21, 1894:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) October 16-18, 1894:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.

*******************************************************************************

12835 08/14/1895 M= 4  1 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
12835 08/14/1895 M= 4  1 SNBR= 332 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

12840 08/14*  0   0   0    0*272 913  35    0*276 910  40    0*279 908  45    0
12845 08/15*283 905  45    0*286 903  50    0*289 900  50    0*292 897  50    0
12850 08/16*296 894  50    0*299 891  45    0*302 888  45    0*307 886  40    0
12855 08/17*313 884  40    0*321 882  40    0*330 881  35    0*338 879  30    0
12855 08/17*313 884  35    0*321 882  30    0*330 881  25    0*338 879  25    0
                     **               **               **               **

12860 TS                    

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds reduced after landfall with the 
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland wind decay model.

********************************************************************************

12865 08/22/1895 M= 8  2 SNBR= 321 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
12865 08/22/1895 M= 9  2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                    *          ***                        *

12870 08/22*134 583  35    0*137 596  40    0*140 607  45    0*143 619  50    0
12875 08/23*145 631  55    0*148 644  55    0*150 658  60    0*153 672  65    0
12880 08/24*155 687  70    0*158 702  75    0*160 717  75    0*162 731  80    0
12880 08/24*155 687  70    0*158 702  75    0*160 717  75    0*164 733  80    0
                                                               *** ***  

12885 08/25*164 745  80    0*167 758  80    0*170 772  85    0*175 789  85    0
12885 08/25*169 751  80    0*174 770  80    0*180 790  85    0*184 802  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

12890 08/26*184 809  85    0*194 829  85    0*202 845  85    0*209 858  85    0
12890 08/26*188 813  85    0*194 829  85    0*202 845  85    0*209 858  85    0
            *** ***  

12895 08/27*215 870  85    0*221 880  85    0*226 890  85    0*230 899  85    0
12900 08/28*234 907  85    0*239 916  85    0*243 925  80    0*248 935  80    0
12900 08/28*233 905  85    0*236 914  85    0*240 923  85    0*243 931  90    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

12905 08/29*252 946  75    0*257 958  70    0*262 970  65    0*266 978  35    0
12905 08/29*245 939  95    0*246 947  95    0*247 955  95    0*248 963  95    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(30th is new to HURDAT.)
12907 08/30*249 971  95    0*250 979  65    0*251 987  40    0*252 995  30    0

12910 HR     
12910 HRATX1     
        ****

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track changes are
found to be reasonable.  Perez (2000) analyzed this hurricane as causing 
Category 1 conditions in western Cuba, which is consistent with the existing 
track and intensity of Category 2 hurricane passing just offshore of the 
island.  Winds increased to 95 kt (Category 2) until landfall in Mexico, due 
to destruction in Mexico described in Ellis (1988).  Hurricane analyzed as 
causing Category 1 conditions in extreme southern Texas based upon 
description in Ellis.

********************************************************************************

1895/02 – 2009 REVISION:

13465 08/22/1895 M= 9  2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
13465 08/22/1895 M= 9  2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=1                     
                                                    *

13470 08/22*134 583  35    0*137 596  40    0*140 607  45    0*143 619  50    0*
13475 08/23*145 631  55    0*148 644  55    0*150 658  60    0*153 672  65    0*
13480 08/24*155 687  70    0*158 702  75    0*160 717  75    0*164 733  80    0*
13485 08/25*169 751  80    0*174 770  80    0*180 790  85    0*184 802  85    0*
13490 08/26*188 813  85    0*194 829  85    0*202 845  85    0*209 858  85    0*
13495 08/27*215 870  85    0*221 880  85    0*226 890  85    0*230 899  85    0*
13500 08/28*233 905  85    0*236 914  85    0*240 923  85    0*243 931  90    0*
13505 08/29*245 939  95    0*246 947  95    0*247 955  95    0*248 963  95    0*
13510 08/30*249 971  95    0*250 979  65    0*251 987  40    0*252 995  30    0*
13515 HRATX1

The reanalysis had shifted the track at landfall over northern Mexico.  However, 
we neglected to change XING=1 to XING=0, indicating that the system did not make a 
coastal landfall in the U.S.

1895/02 - 2011 REVISION:

13465 08/22/1895 M= 9  2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
13470 08/22*134 583  35    0*137 596  40    0*140 607  45    0*143 619  50    0*
13475 08/23*145 631  55    0*148 644  55    0*150 658  60    0*153 672  65    0*
13480 08/24*155 687  70    0*158 702  75    0*160 717  75    0*164 733  80    0*
13485 08/25*169 751  80    0*174 770  80    0*180 790  85    0*184 802  85    0*
13490 08/26*188 813  85    0*194 829  85    0*202 845  85    0*209 858  85    0*
13495 08/27*215 870  85    0*221 880  85    0*226 890  85    0*230 899  85    0*
13500 08/28*233 905  85    0*236 914  85    0*240 923  85    0*243 931  90    0*
13505 08/29*245 939  95    0*246 947  95    0*247 955  95    0*248 963  95    0*
13510 08/30*249 971  95    0*250 979  65    0*251 987  40    0*252 995  30    0*
13515 HRATX1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
2-8/30/1895    0400Z 25.0N  97.6W   65kt  2    ---   (973mb)   ATX1
2-8/30/1895    0400Z 25.0N  97.6W   65kt  1    ---   (963mb)   ATX1
                                          *           ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Mexico as a 95 kt hurricane.  The impact in Texas was analyzed
to be a minimal (65 kt) hurricane, which was mistakenly listed as
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale 2 in the table.  The new Brown et al. (2006) 
pressure-wind relationship for cyclones south of 25N suggests a central
pressure of 966 mb, while north of 25N suggests a central pressure of 960 mb.  
Thus a central pressure at landfall in Mexico is estimated to be 963 mb.
This is not explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value 
is an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************


12915 09/28/1895 M=10  3 SNBR= 322 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
12915 09/28/1895 M=10  3 SNBR= 334 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

12920 09/28*193 860  35    0*196 866  35    0*199 872  35    0*203 882  35    0
12920 09/28*193 860  35    0*196 866  35    0*199 872  35    0*203 882  30    0
                                                                        **

12925 09/29*207 890  35    0*212 895  35    0*216 897  40    0*221 897  40    0
12925 09/29*207 890  30    0*212 895  30    0*216 897  40    0*221 897  40    0
                     **               **

12930 09/30*227 895  45    0*232 892  45    0*237 885  50    0*238 871  50    0
12935 10/01*238 858  50    0*238 845  50    0*239 834  50    0*240 825  50    0
12940 10/02*242 815  50    0*245 807  50    0*249 799  50    0*252 792  50    0
12945 10/03*256 786  50    0*262 780  50    0*270 772  50    0*280 762  50    0
12950 10/04*290 751  50    0*301 740  50    0*311 729  50    0*321 719  50    0
12955 10/05*330 710  50    0*340 700  50    0*350 690  50    0*362 678  50    0
12960 10/06*376 664  50    0*392 648  50    0*409 630  50    0*426 611  45    0
12965 10/07*444 590  40    0*463 568  40    0*482 544  40    0*  0   0   0    0
12970 TS                    

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds reduced on the 28th and 29th 
due to passage over the Yucatan.

********************************************************************************


12975 10/02/1895 M= 6  4 SNBR= 323 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
12975 10/02/1895 M= 6  4 SNBR= 335 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

12980 10/02*174 829  35    0*177 837  40    0*180 846  45    0*183 855  50    0
12980 10/02*174 829  35    0*177 837  35    0*180 846  35    0*183 855  35    0
                                      **               **               **

12985 10/03*186 863  50    0*190 872  45    0*193 880  35    0*196 888  35    0
12985 10/03*186 863  35    0*190 872  35    0*193 880  30    0*196 888  30    0
                     **               **               **               **

12990 10/04*200 895  35    0*203 902  40    0*207 910  45    0*211 919  50    0
12990 10/04*200 895  30    0*203 902  30    0*207 910  35    0*211 919  35    0
                     **               **               **               **

12995 10/05*214 928  50    0*218 938  50    0*222 947  50    0*226 955  50    0
12995 10/05*214 928  35    0*218 938  35    0*222 947  35    0*226 955  35    0
                     **               **               **               **

13000 10/06*232 960  50    0*239 963  50    0*247 965  50    0*259 964  50    0
13000 10/06*232 960  35    0*239 963  35    0*247 965  35    0*259 964  35    0
                     **               **               **               **

13005 10/07*277 956  45    0*299 944  35    0*324 926  30    0*  0   0   0    0
13005 10/07*277 956  35    0*299 944  30    0*324 926  25    0*  0   0   0    0
                     **               **               **               

13010 TS                    

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  No gale force winds (or equivalent
in sea level pressure) were found for this system.  Peak winds observed were
only 25-30 kt in Texas and Louisiana.  Partagas and Diaz commented that
since the system was not mentioned in _Monthly Weather Review_, it must have
been a "very weak" storm.  Thus winds are reduced for lifetime of storm since
available observations indicate that the system was, at best, a minimal 
tropical storm.

********************************************************************************

13015 10/12/1895 M=15  5 SNBR= 324 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
13015 10/12/1895 M=15  5 SNBR= 336 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

13020 10/12*120 448  35    0*120 455  40    0*120 465  45    0*120 475  50    0
13020 10/12*120 448  35    0*120 455  35    0*120 465  40    0*120 475  40    0
                                      **               **               **

13025 10/13*120 485  55    0*120 494  60    0*120 504  65    0*121 514  70    0
13025 10/13*120 485  45    0*120 494  45    0*120 504  50    0*121 514  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

13030 10/14*122 524  75    0*123 535  80    0*124 546  85    0*125 558  90    0
13030 10/14*122 524  50    0*123 535  50    0*124 546  50    0*125 558  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

13035 10/15*125 570  90    0*126 583  95    0*127 596  95    0*129 610 100    0
13035 10/15*125 570  50    0*126 583  50    0*127 596  50    0*129 610  50    0
                     **               **               **              ***

13040 10/16*131 624 100    0*133 639 105    0*135 653 105    0*136 666 105    0
13040 10/16*131 624  55    0*133 639  60    0*135 653  65    0*136 666  70    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

13045 10/17*138 679 105    0*139 692 105    0*140 704 105    0*141 715 105    0
13045 10/17*138 679  75    0*139 692  80    0*140 704  85    0*141 715  90    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

13050 10/18*142 726 105    0*144 737 105    0*149 747 105    0*156 757 105    0
13050 10/18*143 730  90    0*146 745  90    0*150 760  90    0*153 775  90    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

13055 10/19*163 766 105    0*170 775 105    0*178 783 105    0*185 789 105    0
13055 10/19*157 795  90    0*161 810  90    0*165 815  90    0*171 818  90    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

13060 10/20*193 794 105    0*200 797 105    0*208 799 105    0*215 800 100    0
13060 10/20*177 820  90    0*183 820  90    0*189 820  90    0*195 820  90    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

13065 10/21*223 799  95    0*230 799  90    0*238 797  85    0*245 795  85    0
13065 10/21*201 820  90    0*207 817  90    0*213 813  90    0*222 807  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  **      *** *** 

13070 10/22*251 791  85    0*258 787  90    0*264 782  95    0*271 775  95    0
13070 10/22*234 800  85    0*248 792  90    0*262 784  90    0*271 775  90    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **               **

13075 10/23*278 765 100    0*285 752 100    0*292 735 100    0*300 715 105    0
13075 10/23*278 765  90    0*285 752  90    0*292 735  90    0*299 717  90    0
                    ***              ***              ***      *** *** ***

13080 10/24*309 692 105    0*318 666 105    0*327 638 105    0*339 609 105    0
13080 10/24*304 702  90    0*309 689  90    0*315 670  90    0*327 638  90    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

13085 10/25*350 579 105    0*352 549 105    0*350 515 100    0*347 486  95    0
13085 10/25*342 595  90    0*349 549  90    0*350 515  85    0*347 486  75    0
            *** *** ***      ***     ***              ***               **

13090 10/26*344 454  90    0*342 421  65    0*340 388  35    0*  0   0   0    0
13090 10/26*344 454  65    0E342 421  55    0E340 388  45    0*  0   0   0    0
                     **     *         **     *         **

13095 HR                    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track changes are
found to be reasonable.  Winds reduced from the 12th to the 15th, since the 
observations indicate that the system was, at most, a moderate tropical storm 
going through the Lesser Antilles.  Perez (2000) documents that this hurricane
made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane in Cuba - winds reduced from the 16th 
to the 21st accordingly.  A peripheral pressure of 973 mb (at 17Z on the 21st) 
suggests winds of at least 86 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship 
- 90 kt chosen for best track in agreement with assessment of Category 2 by 
Perez.  Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications 
suggested by Perez (2000).  Winds reduced from the 22nd to the 26th since 
observations indicate that the storm was only a moderate (Category 1 or 2) 
hurricane in the Atlantic.

********************************************************************************

13440 10/13/1895 M= 5  6 SNBR= 325 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
13440 10/13/1895 M= 5  6 SNBR= 337 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

13445 10/13*  0   0   0    0*194 937  35    0*200 930  35    0*206 924  35    0
13450 10/14*212 918  35    0*217 911  35    0*222 904  35    0*226 897  35    0
13455 10/15*231 888  35    0*235 880  35    0*239 870  35    0*243 859  35    0
13460 10/16*248 846  35    0*252 832  35    0*256 816  35    0*264 802  30    0
13465 10/17*276 786  25    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
13470 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).

*******************************************************************************

1895 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned two additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) September 21, 1895:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) November 1-3, 1895:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.

********************************************************************************

13135 07/04/1896 M= 9  1 SNBR= 326 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
13135 07/04/1896 M= 9  1 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                               ***                        *

13140 07/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*209 811  35    0*218 820  45    0
13140 07/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*209 811  35    0*218 820  40    0
                                                                        **

13145 07/05*226 828  50    0*234 836  60    0*242 842  75    0*249 847  80    0
13145 07/05*226 828  45    0*234 836  45    0*242 842  55    0*249 847  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

13150 07/06*256 852  85    0*263 856  85    0*270 860  85    0*277 862  85    0
13150 07/06*256 852  75    0*263 856  85    0*270 860  85    0*277 862  85    0
                     **

13155 07/07*284 862  85    0*290 862  85    0*297 861  80    0*305 861  75    0
13155 07/07*284 865  85    0*290 866  85    0*297 867  85    0*305 864  85    0
                ***              ***              ***  **          ***  **

13160 07/08*314 860  65    0*326 854  60    0*340 850  55    0*356 847  45    0
13160 07/08*316 853  60    0*324 843  45    0*333 835  35    0*345 829  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

13165 07/09*373 844  40    0*390 842  40    0*406 840  35    0*421 838  35    0
13165 07/09*364 832  30    0*385 840  30    0*406 840  25    0*421 838  25    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **               **

13170 07/10*436 835  30    0*451 833  30    0*467 830  25    0*483 822  25    0
13170 07/10*436 835  25    0*451 833  25    0*467 830  25    0*483 822  25    0
                     **               **

13175 07/11*500 808  25    0*517 788  25    0*535 765  25    0*553 741  25    0
13180 07/12*571 713  25    0*589 683  25    0*608 649  25    0*  0   0   0    0
13185 HR            
13185 HRAFL2
        ****            

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds reduced from
the 4th to the 6th since there were no observations in Cuba of a strong
tropical storm or hurricane.  Based upon the 72 mph sustained wind out of 
the north at Pensacola reported in _Monthly Weather Review_, the Category 2 
(85 kt) at landfall originally in HURDAT appears reasonable.  Inland decay 
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the 
Southeast U.S. 

********************************************************************************

1896/01 – 2009 REVISION:

13740 07/04/1896 M= 9  1 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
13745 07/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*209 811  35    0*218 820  40    0*
13750 07/05*226 828  45    0*234 836  45    0*242 842  55    0*249 847  65    0*
13755 07/06*256 852  75    0*263 856  85    0*270 860  85    0*277 862  85    0*
13760 07/07*284 865  85    0*290 866  85    0*297 867  85    0*305 864  85    0*
13765 07/08*316 853  60    0*324 843  45    0*333 835  35    0*345 829  30    0*
13770 07/09*364 832  30    0*385 840  30    0*406 840  25    0*421 838  25    0*
13770 07/09E364 832  30    0E385 840  30    0E406 840  25    0E421 838  25    0*
           *                *                *                *

13775 07/10*436 835  25    0*451 833  25    0*467 830  25    0*483 822  25    0*
13775 07/10E436 835  25    0E451 833  25    0E467 830  25    0E483 822  25    0*
           *                *                *                *

13780 07/11*500 808  25    0*517 788  25    0*535 765  25    0*553 741  25    0*
13780 07/11E500 808  25    0E517 788  25    0E535 765  25    0E553 741  25    0*
           *                *                *                *

13785 07/12*571 713  25    0*589 683  25    0*608 649  25    0*  0   0   0    0*
13785 07/12E571 713  25    0E589 683  25    0E608 649  25    0*  0   0   0    0*
           *                *                *

13790 HRAFL2            

Existing HURDAT carries this system as tropical well up into Baffin Bay.  A review 
of the track maps indicates that a better solution would be to transition to 
extratropical beginning on 0Z on 7/9.   

1896/01 - 2011 REVISION:

13740 07/04/1896 M= 9  1 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
13745 07/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*209 811  35    0*218 820  40    0*
13750 07/05*226 828  45    0*234 836  45    0*242 842  55    0*249 847  65    0*
13755 07/06*256 852  75    0*263 856  85    0*270 860  85    0*277 862  85    0*
13760 07/07*284 865  85    0*290 866  85    0*297 867  85    0*305 864  85    0*
13765 07/08*316 853  60    0*324 843  45    0*333 835  35    0*345 829  30    0*
13770 07/09*364 832  30    0*385 840  30    0*406 840  25    0*421 838  25    0*
13775 07/10*436 835  25    0*451 833  25    0*467 830  25    0*483 822  25    0*
13780 07/11*500 808  25    0*517 788  25    0*535 765  25    0*553 741  25    0*
13785 07/12*571 713  25    0*589 683  25    0*608 649  25    0*  0   0   0    0*
13790 HRAFL2                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-7/7/1896     1700Z 30.4N  86.5W   85kt  2    ---   (973mb)   AFL2
1-7/7/1896     1700Z 30.4N  86.5W   85kt  2    ---   (970mb)   AFL2
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 85 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb - 
for an 85 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.   

*******************************************************************************



13190 08/30/1896 M=13  2 SNBR= 327 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
13190 08/30/1896 M=13  2 SNBR= 339 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***                        *

13195 08/30*  0   0   0    0*140 596  35    0*145 605  50    0*149 614  65    0
13200 08/31*153 624  80    0*158 633  95    0*163 642 100    0*169 651 105    0
13200 08/31*153 624  80    0*158 633  85    0*163 642  85    0*169 651  85    0
                                      **              ***              ***

13205 09/01*175 660 105    0*181 669 100    0*186 678  90    0*190 686  85    0
13205 09/01*175 660  85    0*181 669  85    0*186 678  75    0*190 686  80    0
                    ***              ***               **               **

13210 09/02*193 692  85    0*197 699  85    0*200 706  85    0*203 714  85    0
13215 09/03*206 722  85    0*209 731  90    0*212 739  95    0*215 747  95    0
13215 09/03*206 722  85    0*209 731  85    0*212 739  85    0*215 747  85    0
                                      **               **               **

13220 09/04*218 754 100    0*222 762 100    0*227 768 105    0*233 772 105    0
13220 09/04*218 754  85    0*222 762  85    0*227 768  85    0*233 772  90    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

13225 09/05*239 773 105    0*245 773 105    0*252 772 105    0*259 770 105    0
13225 09/05*239 773  95    0*245 773 100    0*252 772 100    0*259 770 100    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

13230 09/06*265 768 105    0*272 764 105    0*278 758 105    0*285 750 105    0
13230 09/06*265 768 100    0*272 764 100    0*278 758 100    0*285 750 100    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

13235 09/07*291 741 105    0*298 732 105    0*304 723 105    0*313 715 105    0
13235 09/07*291 741 100  956*298 732 100    0*304 723 100    0*313 715 100    0
                    ***  ***         ***              ***              ***

13240 09/08*324 707 105    0*336 700 105    0*346 695 105    0*354 692 105    0
13240 09/08*324 707 100    0*336 700 100    0*346 695 100    0*354 692 100    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

13245 09/09*362 691 105    0*370 691 105    0*378 691 105    0*386 691 105    0
13245 09/09*362 691 100    0*370 691  95    0*378 691  90    0*386 693  85    0
                    ***              ***              ***          *** ***

13250 09/10*393 692 100    0*400 692 100    0*408 693  95    0*417 694  90    0
13250 09/10*393 697  80    0*400 702  75    0*410 706  70    0*420 707  55    0
                *** ***          *** ***      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

13255 09/11*426 694  85    0*437 695  80    0*448 696  80    0*460 700  75    0
13255 09/11E430 705  50    0E439 701  45    0E448 696  40    0E457 690  40    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     *         **     **** ***  **

13260 HR    
13260 HR RI1 MA1    
         *** ***

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations to
the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track changes are found to be 
reasonable.  Boose et al. (2003) analyze the wind-caused damage for this 
hurricane at landfall in Puerto Rico as only isolated Fujita-scale F1 damage, 
which does not support intensity as a major hurricane landfall.  Winds are 
reduced accordingly on the 31st and 1st to Category 2 (85 kt) intensity.  Perez
(2000 and personal communication) indicate that this hurricane produced only 
tropical storm conditions over Cuba during its close trek just offshore the 
coast.  Thus winds are reduced somewhat on the 3rd through the 5th.  A central 
pressure of 956 mb at 00Z on the 7th suggests winds of 98 kt from the 
subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt is utilized in the best track.
Winds adjusted from the 5th to the 9th accordingly.  Hurricane is determined
from wind observations to be a Category 1 hurricane in New England; winds
adjusted accordingly from the 9th to the 11th.  Winds at landfall (Category 1)
and inland agree with assessment by Boose et al. (2001), based upon modeling
of wind-caused damages.  Boose et al. (2001) also estimated a RMW of 30 nmi.
Hurricane is known as "San Ramon Nonato III" or "San Gil" for its impacts in 
Puerto Rico.  

********************************************************************************

13605 09/18/1896 M=11  3 SNBR= 328 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
13605 09/18/1896 M=11  3 SNBR= 340 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

13610 09/18*171 551  35    0*175 565  40    0*178 580  40    0*182 593  45    0
13615 09/19*187 606  50    0*191 618  55    0*196 628  60    0*201 637  65    0
13620 09/20*206 645  70    0*211 653  75    0*216 662  80    0*221 672  85    0
13625 09/21*227 683  85    0*234 694  85    0*241 705  85    0*249 715  85    0
13630 09/22*258 724  85    0*269 733  85    0*280 740  85    0*292 741  85    0
13635 09/23*304 738  85    0*317 727  85    0*330 710  85    0*344 690  85    0
13640 09/24*360 669  85    0*375 647  85    0*389 627  85    0*402 608  85    0
13645 09/25*413 589  85    0*425 570  85    0*438 550  85    0*452 529  85    0
13650 09/26*467 505  85    0*482 479  85    0*497 450  85    0*512 419  85    0
13655 09/27*528 388  85    0*543 357  80    0*558 325  80    0*571 293  75    0
13660 09/28*582 261  70    0*592 229  70    0*600 197  65    0*  0   0   0    0
13665 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).

********************************************************************************

13330 09/22/1896 M= 9  4 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
13330 09/22/1896 M= 9  4 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                               ***                        *

13335 09/22*  0   0   0    0*167 618  35    0*167 628  40    0*167 638  45    0
13335 09/22*  0   0   0    0*167 618  35    0*167 628  35    0*167 638  35    0
                                                       **               **

13340 09/23*167 647  50    0*168 656  60    0*168 665  65    0*168 673  70    0
13340 09/23*167 647  40    0*168 656  40    0*168 665  45    0*168 673  45    0
                     **               **               **               **

13345 09/24*169 680  80    0*169 687  85    0*170 698  90    0*171 711  95    0
13345 09/24*169 680  50    0*169 687  50    0*170 698  55    0*171 711  55    0
                     **               **               **               **

13350 09/25*171 724 100    0*172 736 100    0*173 749 105    0*174 762 105    0
13350 09/25*171 724  60    0*172 736  60    0*173 749  65    0*174 762  65    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

13355 09/26*177 774 105    0*180 787 105    0*185 800 105    0*191 812 105    0
13355 09/26*177 774  70    0*180 787  75    0*185 800  80    0*188 809  85    0
                    ***              ***              ***      *** *** ***

13360 09/27*199 822 105    0*207 831 105    0*216 840 105    0*225 848 105    0
13360 09/27*191 819  90    0*194 828  95    0*197 837 100    0*201 842 105    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** 

13365 09/28*234 854 105    0*244 856 105    0*254 855 100    0*265 850 100    0
13365 09/28*206 849 110    0*214 853 110    0*223 855 110    0*238 853 110    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      ***     ***      *** *** ***

13370 09/29*279 841  95    0*295 832  90    0*312 824  80    0*338 808  75    0
13370 09/29*253 851 110    0*270 842 110  960*296 829 100  963*322 812  85  973 
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***  *** *** *** ***  *** *** ***  **  ***

13375 09/30*369 790  65  992*410 775  50    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
13375 09/30*357 792  70  988E395 785  60  987E420 790  50    0*  0   0   0    0
            *** ***  **  ******* ***  **  ******* ***  **

13380 HR 
13380 HRAFL3DFL3 GA2 SC1 NC1 VA1
        ******** *** *** *** ***

The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who otherwise made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), 
is to use the track analyzed by Sandrik et al. (2001) near the landfall in 
the United States.  Winds reduced from the 22nd until the 27th since 
observations from Partagas and Diaz only support intensification to 
hurricane status as it approached Cuba.  Perez (2001) analyzes the impacts 
of this hurricane as Category 1 in Cuba, consistent with the track chosen 
as just offshore the west tip of Cuba as a major hurricane.  Sandrik et al. 
(2001) analyzed the landfall as a 960 mb hurricane in Florida with a 15 nmi 
radius of maximum winds.  This central pressure suggests 100 kt from the 
Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship.  With a smaller than usual RMW 
for this central pressure and latitude (22 nmi on average - Vickery et al. 
2000) and a rapid forward motion (30 kt at landfall), winds are estimated at 
110 kt at landfall.  A 963 mb central pressure estimated via Ho's methodology 
for 12Z on the 29th suggests 92 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure 
relationship - 100 kt chosen due to small RMW and fast speed of motion 
although the hurricane is overland.  A 973 mb central pressure estimated via 
Ho's methodology for 18Z on the 29th suggests winds of 83 kt for maximum
sustained winds, 85 kt is chosen for the best track for the same reasons
above.  A 988 mb central pressure estimated for 00Z on the 30th suggests
winds of 65 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship, which is
boosted to 70 kt for the same reasons above.  (Note that this was 
originally recorded in HURDAT as 992 mb, which was a peripheral pressure 
measurement not a central pressure.)  Finally, an observed central pressure 
(at 04Z on the 30th) of 987 mb occurred as the storm was going extratropical.

1896/04 - 2006 REVISION:

13935 09/22/1896 M= 9  4 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3                     
13940 09/22*  0   0   0    0*167 618  35    0*167 628  35    0*167 638  35    0*
13945 09/23*167 647  40    0*168 656  40    0*168 665  45    0*168 673  45    0*
13950 09/24*169 680  50    0*169 687  50    0*170 698  55    0*171 711  55    0*
13955 09/25*171 724  60    0*172 736  60    0*173 749  65    0*174 762  65    0*
13960 09/26*177 774  70    0*180 787  75    0*185 800  80    0*188 809  85    0*
13965 09/27*191 819  90    0*194 828  95    0*197 837 100    0*201 842 105    0*
13970 09/28*206 849 110    0*214 853 110    0*223 855 110    0*238 853 110    0*
13975 09/29*253 851 110    0*270 842 110  960*296 829 100  963*322 812  85  973*
13980 09/30*357 792  70  988E395 785  60  987E420 790  50    0*  0   0   0    0*
13985 HRAFL3DFL3 GA2 SC1 NC1 VA1
13985 HRAFL3DFL3 GA2 SC1INC1IVA1
                        ********

Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the North
Carolina and Virginia hurricane impacts from this cyclone were inland, 
rather than along these states' Atlantic coast.  

********************************************************************************

13385 10/07/1896 M=10  5 SNBR= 330 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
13385 10/07/1896 M=10  5 SNBR= 342 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***                        *

13390 10/07*225 912  35    0*230 902  40    0*234 890  50    0*236 882  60    0
13390 10/07*225 912  35    0*230 902  40    0*234 892  45    0*236 882  50    0
                                                  ***  **               **

13395 10/08*239 873  70    0*242 863  80    0*248 852  85    0*255 839  85    0
13395 10/08*239 873  50    0*242 863  50    0*248 852  50    0*255 839  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

13400 10/09*262 825  85    0*270 811  80    0*278 800  70    0*286 791  70    0
13400 10/09*262 825  50    0*270 811  40    0*278 800  35    0*286 791  45    0
                     **               **               **               **

13405 10/10*294 782  75    0*302 774  80    0*310 767  80    0*318 760  85    0
13405 10/10*294 782  50    0*302 774  55    0*310 767  60    0*318 760  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

13410 10/11*327 753  85    0*335 747  85    0*343 739  85    0*351 731  85    0
13410 10/11*327 753  75    0*335 747  85    0*343 739  85    0*351 731  85    0
                     **   

13415 10/12*358 723  85    0*366 714  85    0*373 706  85    0*380 698  85    0
13420 10/13*386 689  85    0*393 680  85    0*400 672  85    0*408 664  85    0
13420 10/13*386 689  80    0*393 680  75    0*400 672  70    0*408 664  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

13425 10/14*416 657  85    0*424 649  85    0*432 642  85    0*440 635  85    0
13425 10/14E416 657  60    0E424 649  55    0E432 642  50    0E440 635  45    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

13430 10/15*449 629  80    0*458 622  75    0*467 615  70    0*481 600  65    0
13430 10/15E449 629  40    0E458 622  35    0E467 615  35    0E481 600  35    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     *         **

13435 10/16*502 570  55    0*528 528  45    0*557 482  40    0*  0   0   0    0
13435 10/16E502 570  35    0E528 528  35    0E557 482  35    0*  0   0   0    0
           *         **     *         **     *         **     

13440 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds reduced while in Gulf of Mexico
since observations do not support hurricane status there or at landfall 
in Florida.  Winds reduced from the 13th until the 16th since observations
do not indicate hurricane intensity north of 41N or at landfall in Canada.
Small alteration to the track on the 7th provides a more realistic 
translational velocity.

********************************************************************************

13445 10/26/1896 M=15  6 SNBR= 331 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
13445 10/26/1896 M=15  6 SNBR= 343 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

13450 10/26*  0   0   0    0* 87 442  35    0* 87 450  35    0* 88 455  40    0
13455 10/27* 89 460  40    0* 90 466  45    0* 92 474  45    0* 95 483  50    0
13460 10/28* 98 492  55    0*101 501  60    0*105 510  65    0*109 519  65    0
13465 10/29*114 528  70    0*120 537  75    0*126 546  80    0*134 553  85    0
13470 10/30*142 557  85    0*151 559  85    0*161 560  85    0*172 560  85    0
13475 10/31*183 558  85    0*194 555  85    0*204 550  85    0*214 543  85    0
13480 11/01*223 536  85    0*231 529  85    0*239 523  85    0*247 517  85    0
13485 11/02*254 512  85    0*261 506  85    0*267 500  85    0*273 494  85    0
13490 11/03*279 488  85    0*285 481  85    0*291 475  85    0*297 468  85    0
13495 11/04*303 461  85    0*309 454  85    0*315 446  85    0*323 436  85    0
13500 11/05*333 424  85    0*345 411  85    0*356 403  85    0*370 393  85    0
13505 11/06*384 390  85    0*398 397  85    0*404 410  80    0*404 415  80    0
13510 11/07*401 421  80    0*396 426  75    0*390 430  75    0*385 430  75    0
13515 11/08*379 425  70    0*374 417  70    0*370 407  65    0*366 396  60    0
13520 11/09*364 383  55    0*362 367  50    0*360 350  45    0*360 339  35    0
13525 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  The only observation possibly 
available for this system is from Bark "Gerald C. Tobay" on Oct. 28th at
21.2N 62.5W where "it came in a whirlwind with rain, thunder and lightning
... lasted only 20 minutes" and caused substantial damage to the ship.  As
Partagas and Diaz discussed, this ship was about 800 miles to the northwest
of the hurricane's position on the 28th.  So either the observation is 
unrelated to the hurricane or the storm was a large system with an outer 
rainband (and possible embedded tornado) that impacted the ship.  Without 
additional data for substantiating changes to HURDAT's original intensity 
estimates, no alterations are made to this hurricane. 

********************************************************************************


13527 11/27/1896 M= 3  7 SNBR= 344 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
13527 11/27*109 611  35    0*112 613  35    0*115 615  40    0*120 617  40    0
13527 11/28*127 618  45    0*134 619  45    0*140 620  50    0*149 622  50    0
13527 11/29*160 623  50    0*170 624  50    0*180 625  40    0*196 623  35    0
13527 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented 
tropical storm.

*******************************************************************************

1896 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned one additional system considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out 
of HURDAT for the following reason:

1) August 28-29, 1896:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.

********************************************************************************

13530 08/31/1897 M=11  1 SNBR= 332 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
13530 08/31/1897 M=11  1 SNBR= 345 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

13535 08/31*  0   0   0    0*140 240  35    0*140 250  35    0*141 261  35    0
13540 09/01*142 273  35    0*143 284  40    0*145 295  55    0*147 306  65    0
13545 09/02*150 317  70    0*153 328  75    0*156 339  75    0*160 350  80    0
13550 09/03*164 361  80    0*169 372  85    0*175 383  85    0*181 395  85    0
13555 09/04*188 408  85    0*195 422  85    0*203 435  85    0*211 448  85    0
13560 09/05*220 462  85    0*229 475  85    0*239 488  85    0*250 498  85    0
13565 09/06*262 502  85    0*275 502  85    0*286 499  85    0*296 494  85    0
13570 09/07*304 487  85    0*313 480  85    0*322 472  85    0*332 464  85    0
13575 09/08*344 455  85    0*356 443  85    0*370 425  85    0*387 402  85    0
13580 09/09*408 373  85    0*430 345  80    0*448 319  80    0*463 294  75    0
13585 09/10*477 269  65    0*489 244  55    0*499 219  50    0*511 194  50    0
13585 09/10E477 269  65    0E489 244  55    0E499 219  50    0E511 194  50    0
           *                *                *                *

13590 HR

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A peripheral pressure of 972 mb 
apparently close to the eye (11 UTC on the 7th) supports at least 84 kt 
from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in the 
best track.  Extratropical stage is suggested to begin on the 10th, while 
north of 45N. 

********************************************************************************

13595 09/10/1897 M= 4  2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
13595 09/10/1897 M= 4  2 SNBR= 346 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***                        *

13600 09/10*  0   0   0    0*237 800  65    0*240 810  65    0*244 819  65    0
13600 09/10*  0   0   0    0*237 800  50    0*240 810  55    0*244 819  60    0
                                      **               **               **

13605 09/11*248 829  65    0*254 836  75    0*260 846  80    0*266 856  85    0
13605 09/11*248 829  65    0*254 836  75    0*260 846  75    0*266 856  75    0
                                                       **               **

13610 09/12*272 868  85    0*278 879  85    0*284 892  80    0*289 906  75    0
13610 09/12*272 868  75    0*278 879  75    0*283 892  75    0*288 905  75    0
                     **               **      ***      **      *** *** 

13615 09/13*295 920  70    0*299 936  65    0*304 952  50    0*327 965  40    0
13615 09/13*293 922  75    0*298 941  75    0*303 957  50    0*312 975  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

13620 HR
13620 HRCTX1 LA1
        **** ***

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  The hurricane is
lowered to a tropical storm on the 10th, since observations in Key West 
do not indicate hurricane force had yet been reached.  The hurricane is
downgraded from Category 2 (85 kt) to Category 1 (75 kt) over the Gulf of 
Mexico and at landfall in Texas/Louisiana, due to evidence from observed winds,
6 ft of storm tide in Sabine Pass (Partagas and Diaz 1996b) and damage in 
Texas/Louisiana.  Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of
information about its genesis.

1897/02 - 2011 REVISION:

14225 09/10/1897 M= 4  2 SNBR= 346 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
14230 09/10*  0   0   0    0*237 800  50    0*240 810  55    0*244 819  60    0*
14235 09/11*248 829  65    0*254 836  75    0*260 846  75    0*266 856  75    0*
14240 09/12*272 868  75    0*278 879  75    0*283 892  75    0*288 905  75    0*
14245 09/13*293 922  75    0*298 941  75    0*303 957  50    0*312 975  40    0*
14250 HRCTX1 LA1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
2-9/13/1897    0500Z 29.7N  93.8W   75kt  1    ---   (981mb)   LA1,TX1
2-9/13/1897    0500Z 29.7N  93.8W   75kt  1    ---   (978mb)   LA1,TX1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and Texas as a 75 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 981 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 978 mb - 
for a 75 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************


13625 09/20/1897 M= 6  3 SNBR= 334 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
13625 09/20/1897 M= 6  3 SNBR= 347 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

13630 09/20*221 844  40    0*232 842  40    0*243 838  40    0*253 831  40    0
13630 09/20*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*243 838  40    0*253 831  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **                                **

13635 09/21*263 825  40    0*273 819  40    0*283 814  35    0*293 808  35    0
13635 09/21*263 825  60    0*273 819  50    0*283 814  45    0*293 807  40    0
                     **               **               **          ***  **

13640 09/22*303 802  35    0*314 795  40    0*324 789  40    0*333 783  40    0
13640 09/22*303 799  45    0*314 790  50    0*324 783  55    0*333 776  60    0
                ***  **          ***  **          ***  **          ***  **

13645 09/23*342 777  40    0*349 772  40    0*358 766  40    0*368 759  40    0
13645 09/23*341 769  60    0*348 762  60    0*355 753  60    0*366 746  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

13650 09/24*381 751  40    0*396 740  40    0*412 728  35    0*433 706  30    0
13650 09/24*383 741  60    0*397 736  55    0*410 725  45    0*433 706  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **

13655 09/25*459 667  30    0*490 612  30    0*525 550  25    0*  0   0   0    0
13660 TS    
      
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track changes are found
to be reasonable.  Storm is boosted to a strong tropical storm at landfall 
in Florida based upon description of impacts.  Storm is boosted to a strong 
tropical storm while passing along the Atlantic seaboard, but not enough 
evidence was found to support Partagas and Diaz' suggestion to upgrade this 
to a hurricane.

********************************************************************************

13661 09/25/1897 M= 5  4 SNBR= 348 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
13662 09/25*196 829  35    0*198 832  35    0*200 835  35    0*203 838  35    0
13663 09/26*205 840  35    0*207 842  35    0*210 845  35    0*214 848  35    0
13664 09/27*219 851  35    0*224 853  35    0*230 855  40    0*238 856  40    0
13665 09/28*247 857  40    0*254 856  40    0*259 855  40    0*263 854  40    0
13666 09/29*266 852  40    0*268 849  40    0*270 845  40    0*272 838  35    0
13667 TS

This newly documented tropical storm is incorporated from Partagas and Diaz 
(1996a) without alteration.

********************************************************************************

13665 10/09/1897 M=14  4 SNBR= 335 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
13665 10/09/1897 M=14  5 SNBR= 349 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                       *       ***                  

13670 10/09*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*124 617  40    0
13675 10/10*125 626  40    0*127 638  40    0*130 649  40    0*132 661  40    0
13680 10/11*134 672  40    0*136 684  40    0*138 696  40    0*140 708  40    0
13685 10/12*141 720  40    0*142 733  40    0*144 745  40    0*146 758  40    0
13690 10/13*148 771  40    0*151 784  40    0*155 796  40    0*160 807  40    0
13695 10/14*166 815  40    0*172 823  40    0*178 829  40    0*184 835  40    0
13695 10/14*163 811  40    0*167 816  40    0*170 820  40    0*173 823  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***
      
13700 10/15*189 841  40    0*195 846  40    0*200 850  40    0*205 854  40    0
13700 10/15*176 826  40    0*178 828  40    0*180 830  40    0*183 831  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

13705 10/16*210 857  40    0*214 859  40    0*219 860  40    0*225 861  40    0
13705 10/16*184 831  40    0*185 831  40    0*187 830  40    0*190 828  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

13710 10/17*231 860  40    0*236 859  40    0*241 857  40    0*245 854  40    0
13710 10/17*192 825  40    0*194 823  45    0*197 820  50    0*199 816  55    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

13715 10/18*248 851  40    0*251 847  40    0*254 844  40    0*257 841  40    0
13715 10/18*201 811  60    0*203 808  65    0*206 803  70    0*212 796  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

13720 10/19*260 837  40    0*263 834  40    0*266 830  35    0*277 822  35    0
13720 10/19*218 789  70    0*225 782  60    0*233 777  55    0*253 772  55    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

13725 10/20*299 807  40    0*323 787  40    0*343 765  40    0*358 742  40    0
13725 10/20*275 767  55    0*298 765  55    0*322 763  55    0*346 758  55    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

13730 10/21*372 718  40    0*383 693  40    0*390 670  40    0*393 651  40    0
13730 10/21*372 744  50    0*388 719  45    0E397 690  40    0E401 663  40    0
                ***  **      *** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

13735 10/22*396 636  40    0*398 619  40    0*400 595  40    0*401 574  40    0
13735 10/22E399 640  40    0E398 619  40    0E400 595  40    0E401 574  40    0
           **** ***         *                *                *

13740 TS    
13740 HR
      **

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4.
These track changes are found to be reasonable.  Peripheral pressure of 
993 mb (on the 18th) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the southern 
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt used in best track which is consistent 
with analysis of a Category 1 landfall in Cuba (Perez 2000).  Changes made 
to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by 
Perez (2000).  Storm is thus upgraded to a hurricane and winds are 
increased accordingly from the 17th until the 21st.  The hurricane is known 
as "Ciclon de Tunas de Zaza" due to its impacts in Cuba (Perez 2000).

********************************************************************************

13745 10/23/1897 M= 9  5 SNBR= 336 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
13745 10/23/1897 M= 9  6 SNBR= 350 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                       *       ***                        *

13750 10/23*  0   0   0    0*245 773  50    0*258 769  50    0*275 761  50    0
13755 10/24*291 755  50    0*306 750  50    0*321 745  50    0*335 740  50    0
13760 10/25*347 737  50    0*359 732  55    0*370 741  55    0*367 753  55    0
13760 10/25*347 735  50    0*359 732  55    0*370 741  55    0*367 753  55    0
                ***

13765 10/26*359 758  50    0*350 754  45    0*348 750  40    0*345 748  40    0
13765 10/26*359 758  50    0*350 754  45    0*347 751  40    0*345 748  40    0
                                              *** ***

13770 10/27*343 744  45    0*340 738  50    0*338 730  50    0*337 721  50    0
13775 10/28*337 712  50    0*336 702  50    0*336 692  50    0*340 681  50    0
13775 10/28*336 712  50    0*336 702  50    0*336 692  50    0*340 681  50    0
            ***

13780 10/29*348 668  50    0*355 657  50    0*365 647  50    0*372 639  50    0
13780 10/29*348 668  50    0*355 657  50    0E365 647  50    0E372 639  50    0
                                             *                *

13785 10/30*378 633  50    0*385 627  50    0*392 620  50    0*400 613  50    0
13785 10/30E378 633  50    0E385 627  50    0E392 620  50    0E400 613  50    0
           *                *                *                *

13790 10/31*409 606  50    0*418 598  50    0*426 590  50    0*436 574  50    0
13790 10/31E409 606  50    0E418 598  50    0E426 590  50    0E436 578  50    0
           *                *                *                *    ***

13795 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5.  Slight
adjustments to track made on the 25th, 26th, 28th and 31st to allow for more 
realistic translational velocities.  Extratropical stage indicated for portion 
of track as it moved toward the northeast north of 36N in late October.  Full 
lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information 
about its genesis.

*******************************************************************************

1897 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned one additional system considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out 
of HURDAT for the following reason:

1) August 15, 1897:  Damage reports in Nicaragua leave it uncertain if 
   system was a tornado or tropical storm.

*******************************************************************************

13800 08/02/1898 M= 2  1 SNBR= 337 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
13800 08/02/1898 M= 2  1 SNBR= 351 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***                        *

13805 08/02*268 792  35    0*274 810  70    0*280 826  65    0*289 838  65    0
13805 08/02*268 792  35    0*274 810  30    0*280 826  35    0*289 838  55    0
                                      **               **               **

13810 08/03*298 849  65    0*306 861  60    0*315 872  35    0*320 882  25    0
13810 08/03*298 849  70    0*306 861  50    0*315 872  35    0*320 882  25    0
                     **               ** 

13815 HR
13815 HRAFL1
        ****

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S.  Category 1
landfall status maintained in Northwest Florida, but available observational
data (i.e., the _Monthly Weather Review_ described it as a "feeble disturbance
near Jupiter" with maximum sustained winds of 32 kt from the east on Aug.
1st) suggests that the system was only a weak tropical storm at its 
first landfall in peninsular Florida.  

1898/01 - 2011 REVISION:

14465 08/02/1898 M= 2  1 SNBR= 351 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
14470 08/02*268 792  35    0*274 810  30    0*280 826  35    0*289 838  55    0*
14475 08/03*298 849  70    0*306 861  50    0*315 872  35    0*320 882  25    0*
14480 HRAFL1                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-8/2/1898     2300Z 29.7N  84.8W   70kt  1    ---   (985mb)   AFL1
1-8/2/1898     2300Z 29.7N  84.8W   70kt  1    ---   (982mb)   AFL1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb - 
for a 70 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************


13820 08/30/1898 M= 3  2 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
13820 08/30/1898 M= 3  2 SNBR= 352 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***                        *

13825 08/30*  0   0   0    0*293 791  35    0*301 794  65    0*309 798  80    0
13825 08/30*  0   0   0    0*293 791  35    0*301 794  65    0*309 798  75    0
                                                                        **

13830 08/31*315 802  85    0*320 807  85    0*324 814  65  990*326 822  60    0
13830 08/31*315 802  75    0*320 807  75    0*324 814  60     *326 822  50    0
                     **               **               **  ***          **

13835 09/01*326 831  45    0*327 841  40    0*328 853  35    0*331 866  30    0
13840 HR
13840 HR GA1 SC1
         *** ***

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S.  A
peripheral pressure (incorrectly listed as a central pressure in original
version of HURDAT) of 990 mb (at 09Z on the 31st) suggests winds of at 
least 63 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt chosen 
for best track.

********************************************************************************

13841 09/03/1898 M= 4  3 SNBR= 353 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
13842 09/03*  0   0   0    0*408 421  70    0*420 410  70    0*429 398  70    0
13843 09/04*439 383  70    0*449 369  70    0*460 355  70    0*468 343  70    0
13844 09/05*477 328  70    0*486 314  70    0E495 300  60    0E507 280  50    0
13845 09/06E520 253  45    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
13846 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented 
hurricane.  

********************************************************************************

13845 09/05/1898 M=16  3 SNBR= 339 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
13845 09/05/1898 M=16  4 SNBR= 354 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

13850 09/05*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*112 269  35    0*114 290  35    0
13855 09/06*115 310  40    0*116 328  45    0*117 344  55    0*117 358  65    0
13860 09/07*117 372  70    0*118 385  75    0*119 399  80    0*119 414  80    0
13865 09/08*120 430  85    0*120 446  85    0*120 462  85    0*120 481  85    0
13865 09/08*120 430  85    0*120 446  85    0*120 462  85    0*120 477  85    0
                                                                   ***

13870 09/09*120 501  85    0*120 521  85    0*121 537  85    0*121 549  85    0
13870 09/09*120 491  85    0*120 503  85    0*120 515  85    0*120 526  85    0
                ***              ***          *** ***          *** ***

13875 09/10*122 559  85    0*123 569  85    0*125 579  85    0*130 595  85    0
13875 09/10*121 541  85    0*122 556  85    0*123 570  85    0*123 580  90    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

13880 09/11*136 609  85    0*145 620  85    0*153 628  85    0*162 630  85    0
13880 09/11*125 589  95    0*127 598  95    0*130 607  95    0*136 615  95  965 
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  ***

13885 09/12*169 632  85    0*177 633  85    0*185 634  85    0*191 635  85    0
13885 09/12*145 622  95    0*157 628  95    0*170 633  95    0*183 635  95    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **

13890 09/13*197 636  85    0*204 637  85    0*210 639  85    0*217 640  85    0
13890 09/13*197 636  95    0*204 637  95    0*210 639  95    0*217 640  95    0
                     **               **               **               **

13895 09/14*223 642  85    0*229 644  85    0*236 648  85    0*239 649  85    0
13895 09/14*223 642  90    0*229 644  85    0*236 648  85    0*239 649  85    0
                     **

13900 09/15*243 652  85    0*247 655  85    0*250 658  85    0*254 662  85    0
13905 09/16*258 666  85    0*262 671  85    0*266 675  85    0*272 679  85    0
13910 09/17*281 685  85    0*290 690  85    0*300 693  85    0*309 691  85    0
13915 09/18*319 687  85    0*330 680  85    0*340 672  85    0*352 659  85    0
13920 09/19*366 647  85    0*382 634  80    0*400 620  75    0*422 603  65    0
13925 09/20*451 583  55    0*485 563  45    0*520 541  40    0*  0   0   0    0
13925 09/20E451 583  55    0E485 563  45    0E520 541  40    0*  0   0   0    0
           *                *

13930 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm 
number 3.  A central pressure of 965mb (on 16Z on the 11th) suggests winds of 
95 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship.  Given the estimated 
motion of the hurricane and wind reports from St. Vincent, a RMW of 15 nmi is 
analyzed which is close to the climatological RMW for that central pressure 
and latitude (14 nmi, from Vickery et al. 2000).  Thus 95 kt is chosen for 
landfall in the Lesser Antilles.  Winds are altered from the 8th to the 14th
accordingly.

********************************************************************************


13935 09/12/1898 M=11  4 SNBR= 340 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
13935 09/12/1898 M=11  5 SNBR= 355 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                       *       ***

13940 09/12*  0   0   0    0*129 791  50    0*132 795  50    0*135 797  50    0
13945 09/13*138 799  50    0*141 802  50    0*144 804  50    0*147 807  50    0
13950 09/14*149 809  50    0*152 812  50    0*154 815  50    0*156 818  50    0
13955 09/15*159 821  50    0*161 825  50    0*163 831  50    0*166 840  50    0
13960 09/16*169 851  50    0*172 863  50    0*176 875  50    0*180 887  50    0
13960 09/16*169 851  50    0*172 863  50    0*176 875  50    0*180 887  40    0
                                                                        **

13965 09/17*185 900  45    0*191 913  40    0*199 924  40    0*208 932  45    0
13965 09/17*185 900  35    0*191 913  40    0*199 924  40    0*208 932  45    0
                     **

13970 09/18*217 936  45    0*225 938  50    0*234 939  50    0*243 939  50    0
13975 09/19*252 939  50    0*260 938  50    0*269 937  50    0*277 935  50    0
13980 09/20*284 933  50    0*291 930  50    0*298 928  50    0*305 925  45    0
13980 09/20*284 933  50    0*291 930  50    0*298 928  45    0*305 925  40    0
                                                       **               **

13985 09/21*313 923  40    0*320 920  35    0*327 917  35    0*339 913  35    0
13985 09/21*313 923  35    0*320 920  35    0*327 917  30    0*339 913  30    0
                     **                                **               **

13990 09/22*358 910  35    0*380 905  35    0*399 900  35    0*  0   0   0    0
13990 09/22*358 910  30    0*380 905  25    0*399 900  25    0*  0   0   0    0
                     **               **               **

13995 TS    

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4.  Inland decay 
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central 
America and the Southeast U.S.  

********************************************************************************

14055 09/20/1898 M= 9  6 SNBR= 342 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
14055 09/20/1898 M= 9  6 SNBR= 356 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               ***

14060 09/20*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*110 798  50    0*121 806  50    0
14065 09/21*131 813  50    0*140 820  50    0*148 826  50    0*154 831  50    0
14070 09/22*161 835  50    0*167 840  50    0*173 845  50    0*180 851  50    0
14075 09/23*187 857  50    0*194 863  50    0*200 869  50    0*205 875  50    0
14075 09/23*187 857  50    0*194 863  50    0*200 869  50    0*205 875  40    0
                                                                        **

14080 09/24*210 881  45    0*214 886  40    0*218 892  40    0*222 897  40    0
14080 09/24*210 881  35    0*214 886  35    0*218 892  40    0*222 897  40    0
                     **               **

14085 09/25*225 902  45    0*229 907  50    0*233 912  50    0*237 918  50    0
14090 09/26*241 924  50    0*245 931  50    0*250 937  50    0*255 942  50    0
14095 09/27*261 945  50    0*267 947  50    0*273 948  50    0*279 949  50    0
14100 09/28*286 948  45    0*293 947  40    0*300 945  35    0*309 944  30    0
14100 09/28*286 948  50    0*293 947  50    0*300 945  40    0*309 944  30    0
                     **               **               **

14105 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America and the 
Texas.  50 kt sustained winds maintained until landfall in Texas, rather
than weakening indicated in original HURDAT before reaching the coast.

********************************************************************************

14110 09/25/1898 M=12  7 SNBR= 343 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=9
14110 09/25/1898 M=12  7 SNBR= 357 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=4
                               ***                        *

14115 09/25*162 583  35    0*166 587  40    0*171 592  40    0*175 598  45    0
14115 09/25*162 583  35    0*166 587  40    0*171 592  40    0*177 598  45    0
                                                               ***

14120 09/26*179 605  50    0*183 611  60    0*187 617  65    0*191 623  70    0
14120 09/26*184 608  50    0*191 617  60    0*197 625  65    0*205 634  65    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

14125 09/27*194 630  80    0*197 636  85    0*201 642  90    0*205 648  95    0
14125 09/27*213 643  65    0*219 651  70    0*225 660  75    0*232 670  80  977 
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  ***

14130 09/28*210 654  95    0*216 661  95    0*222 667  95    0*228 673  95    0
14130 09/28*237 678  85    0*244 689  90    0*250 700  95    0*254 706  95    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

14135 09/29*234 679  95    0*241 684  95    0*247 690  95    0*254 696  95    0
14135 09/29*258 712  95    0*262 719  95    0*265 725  95    0*268 730  95    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14140 09/30*260 703  95    0*267 710  95    0*273 717  95    0*278 724  95    0
14140 09/30*271 735  95    0*272 739  95    0*275 745  95    0*279 752  95    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14145 10/01*283 732  95    0*287 741  95    0*292 751  95    0*297 763  95    0
14145 10/01*283 759  95    0*287 766 100    0*290 773 105    0*293 780 110    0
                ***              *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

14150 10/02*302 779  90    0*307 794  90    0*312 808  85    0*317 820  75    0
14150 10/02*296 787 115    0*299 796 115    0*304 806 115  938*311 818  90    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***  *** *** ***  **

14155 10/03*323 831  65    0*329 842  60    0*335 852  55    0*343 861  50    0
14155 10/03*319 831  65    0*327 842  45    0*335 852  35    0*343 861  30    0
            ***              ***      **               **               **

14160 10/04*352 869  45    0*364 875  40    0*376 879  40    0*391 876  35    0
14160 10/04*352 869  30    0*364 875  30    0*376 879  30    0*391 876  30    0
                     **               **               **               **

14165 10/05*410 862  35    0*429 838  30    0*445 808  30    0*456 770  30    0
14165 10/05*410 862  25    0*429 838  25    0*445 808  25    0*456 770  25    0
                     **               **               **               **

14170 10/06*464 720  25    0*468 658  25    0*470 588  25    0*480 528  25    0
14175 HR    
14175 HR GA4DFL2
         *******

The major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), was to incorporate the 
findings of Sandrik and Jarvinen (1999).  Partagas and Diaz otherwise made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), 
A central pressure of 977 mb (on 18Z on the 27th) suggests winds of 81 kt 
from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt used in the best track.  
Winds adjusted on the 26th to the 28th accordingly.  Sandrik and Jarvinen 
(1999) analyzed a 938 mb central pressure at landfall based upon SLOSH runs 
with observed storm surge values (16' maximum at Brunswick, Georgia) and an 
estimated RMW of 18 n.mi.  938 mb central pressure suggests winds of 112 kt 
from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship.  A slightly higher value - 
115 kt - is chosen at landfall because of the slightly smaller RMW than 
would be expected climatologically (Vickery et al. 2000).  Inland winds 
adjusted downward based upon inland decay model and analysis of observations 
from Sandrik (1998).

********************************************************************************

14000 09/20/1898 M= 9  5 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14000 09/25/1898 M= 4  8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **         *  *       ***                  *

14005 09/20*  0   0   0    0*155 593  50    0*157 600  50    0*160 607  50    0
14010 09/21*164 614  50    0*167 620  50    0*170 627  50    0*173 633  50    0
14015 09/22*175 639  50    0*178 645  45    0*181 651  40    0*185 659  40    0
14020 09/23*189 669  40    0*193 678  45    0*197 686  50    0*200 692  50    0
14025 09/24*203 698  50    0*207 704  50    0*210 710  50    0*214 716  50    0
(20th through the 24th are omitted.  Storm started on the 25th.)

14030 09/25*217 722  50    0*221 728  50    0*225 734  50    0*229 740  50    0
14030 09/25*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*241 830  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14035 09/26*234 747  50    0*239 754  50    0*244 760  50    0*250 765  50    0
14035 09/26*248 814  35    0*254 800  40    0*260 790  40    0*264 782  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14040 09/27*256 768  50    0*262 770  50    0*268 770  50    0*273 768  45    0
14040 09/27*268 775  50    0*272 768  50    0*276 762  50    0*279 758  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14045 09/28*277 764  45    0*281 758  40    0*285 750  35    0*289 740  30    0
14045 09/28*281 755  45    0*283 752  40    0*285 750  35    0*287 748  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***                           *** ***  **

14050 TS    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5.
These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable.  Track altered 
slightly on the 28th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************

1898/08 - 2003 REVISION: 

14000 09/20/1898 M= 9  5 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14000 09/25/1898 M= 4  8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **         *  *       ***                  *

14005 09/20*  0   0   0    0*155 593  50    0*157 600  50    0*160 607  50    0
14010 09/21*164 614  50    0*167 620  50    0*170 627  50    0*173 633  50    0
14015 09/22*175 639  50    0*178 645  45    0*181 651  40    0*185 659  40    0
14020 09/23*189 669  40    0*193 678  45    0*197 686  50    0*200 692  50    0
14025 09/24*203 698  50    0*207 704  50    0*210 710  50    0*214 716  50    0
(20th through the 24th are omitted.  Storm started on the 25th.)

14030 09/25*217 722  50    0*221 728  50    0*225 734  50    0*229 740  50    0
14030 09/25*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*241 830  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14035 09/26*234 747  50    0*239 754  50    0*244 760  50    0*250 765  50    0
14035 09/26*248 814  35    0*254 800  40    0*260 790  40    0*264 782  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14040 09/27*256 768  50    0*262 770  50    0*268 770  50    0*273 768  45    0
14040 09/27*268 775  50    0*272 768  50    0*276 762  50    0*279 758  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14045 09/28*277 764  45    0*281 758  40    0*285 750  35    0*289 740  30    0
14045 09/28*281 755  45    0*283 752  40    0*285 750  35    0*287 748  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***                           *** ***  **

14050 TS    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5.
These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable.  Track altered 
slightly on the 28th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity.


1898/08 - 2004 REVISION:

14830 09/25/1898 M= 4  8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
14830 09/25/1898 M= 4  8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                                                    *

14835 09/25*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*241 830  35    0
14835 09/25*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*205 845  30    0
                                                               *** ***  **

14840 09/26*248 814  35    0*254 800  40    0*260 790  40    0*264 782  45    0
14840 09/26*210 840  30    0*217 833  30    0*225 825  30 1008*235 813  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  ** **** *** ***  **

14845 09/27*268 775  50    0*272 768  50    0*276 762  50    0*279 758  45    0
14845 09/27*245 800  35    0*255 790  40    0*265 780  45    0*270 772  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** *** 

14850 09/28*281 755  45    0*283 752  40    0*285 750  35    0*287 748  35    0
14850 09/28*275 764  45    0*280 757  40    0*285 750  35    0*287 748  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***            

14855 TS


U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date         Time   Lat    Lon    Max    States
                                   Winds  Affected
8-9/26/1898    0600Z  25.1   80.8    40     FL
(Removed from listing)


The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested that additional
research be done into this tropical storm and storm 1898/8:

   "1898, Storms #7 and #8: While the series of events that Chris
    has gone with matches what was originally stated in the Monthly
    Weather Review, the meteorology of this situation troubles me.
    Storm #8 is moving northeastward on the northwest side of storm
    #7 - a developing major hurricane - and by 28 September the
    two systems are only 400-500 n mi apart. Would a northeastward
    motion for storm #8 be reasonable under those conditions? Chris
    needs to give this situation a closer look."

Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the 
COADS ship database, and coastal station data, this system's track and 
intensity record has been substantially altered. However, that there was 
a tropical cyclone that moved generally to the northeast in advance of 
an intensifying hurricane was confirmed.  The 
relevant ship and station data are included in the attached spreadsheet.

Ship data on the 25th and early on the 26th indicated a disturbance becoming
organized in the south central Gulf of Mexico/northwestern Caribbean
Sea.  A weak vortex moved across western Cuba on the 26th accompanied by
winds of less than gale force.  (The 1008 mb pressure minimum recorded
in Havana may have been a central pressure measurement, which suggests
winds of 28 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship.  30 kt 
utilized at 12 UTC on the 26th.)  Tampa's pressure readings reached a 
minimum of 1011 mb at 1930 UTC on the 26th, indicating a closest point of 
approach near that time.  While no gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) 
were recorded at any time for this system, the combination of coastal and
ship observations do confirm that a closed circulation existed and that
it moved off to the northeast (just off of the southeast coast of Florida)
on the 27th and 28th with a gradual decrease in forward speed.  The track 
was adjusted for the lifetime of the system.  The intensity was reduced to a 
tropical depression during its trek across Cuba and ramped back up to the 
original tropical storm intensity thereafter.  It is possible, however, that 
this system never achieved tropical storm status, as no COADS or station
data provide any direct evidence of tropical storm intensity.

********************************************************************************

14251 10/21/1898 M= 3 10 SNBR= 360 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14252 10/21*185 858  35    0*190 856  35    0*195 853  35    0*200 850  35    0
14253 10/22*206 847  40    0*211 843  40    0*218 837  40    0*226 828  40    0
14254 10/23*235 816  35    0*242 804  40    0E250 790  35    0E263 769  35    0
14255 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
tropical storm.

********************************************************************************


14255 10/27/1898 M= 9  9 SNBR= 345 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14255 10/27/1898 M= 9 11 SNBR= 361 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                      **       *** 

14260 10/27*  0   0   0    0*179 612  50    0*177 626  50    0*176 637  50    0
14265 10/28*175 648  50    0*174 659  50    0*174 670  50    0*174 681  50    0
14270 10/29*174 692  50    0*174 703  50    0*174 713  50    0*174 723  50    0
14275 10/30*174 732  50    0*174 741  50    0*174 749  50    0*174 757  50    0
14280 10/31*174 766  50    0*174 774  50    0*174 782  50    0*174 791  50    0
14285 11/01*175 800  50    0*176 808  50    0*177 817  50    0*177 824  50    0
14290 11/02*177 830  50    0*178 836  50    0*178 843  50    0*179 851  50    0
14295 11/03*180 859  50    0*180 868  50    0*181 878  50    0*181 889  45    0
14295 11/03*180 859  50    0*180 868  50    0*181 878  40    0*181 889  35    0 
                                                       **               **

14300 11/04*182 901  40    0*182 913  30    0*182 927  25    0*183 938  20    0
14300 11/04*182 901  30    0*182 913  30    0*182 927  25    0*183 938  20    0
                     **              

14305 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9.  Partagas
and Diaz did indicate substantial doubt that the storm did in fact exist
(since their only documentation of this system comes from Mitchell 
[1924], which offers no details on the storm).  However, observations
from Rivas, Nicaragua (11.4N, 85.8W) from the December 1898 _Monthly Weather
Review_ do indicate a closed circulation to the north at the time that
this tropical storm would have been by passing that location.  Thus this 
tropical storm will be kept in the HURDAT database.  Inland decay model of 
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America.  Full
lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information about
its genesis stage.

********************************************************************************

1898 - Additional Notes - 2004 ADDITION:

1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee identified a possible new tropical
storm to add into HURDAT for 1898:

   "1898 - note possible additional system.  Significant rainfall 
    in Jamaica found in MWR. No wind data, but a pressure is given 
    of 28.66. (May 23-27)."

Upon investigation of this system in the Monthly Weather Review and from
the COADS ship database, this system - while producing huge amounts of
rainfall in Jamaica and some reports of gusty winds - did not have a 
closed circulation and thus was not a tropical cyclone.  (The "28.66"
report was actually the rainfall, not pressure, that occurred in one
day at Cinchona Plantation, Jamaica on the 25th.)


Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned two additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

2) September 9-11, 1898:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) November 5-7, 1898:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
******************************************************************************* 

14306 06/26/1899 M= 2  1 SNBR= 362 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
14307 06/26*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*275 930  35    0*278 936  35    0
14308 06/27*282 942  35    0*288 948  35    0*295 955  30    0*303 962  25    0
14309 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
tropical storm.  It is noted, however, that the evidence that this was
a tropical cyclone of tropical storm intensity was not completely
conclusive, as no reports of gale force winds (or pressure/damage
equivalent) were obtained.

********************************************************************************

14310 07/31/1899 M= 3  1 SNBR= 346 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
14310 07/28/1899 M= 6  2 SNBR= 363 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
                    *  *       ***                        *

(28th to the 30th are new to HURDAT.)
14311 07/28*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*170 695  70    0*183 708  70    0
14312 07/29*196 723  50    0*205 739  40    0*213 755  40    0*220 768  40    0
14313 07/30*229 781  40    0*241 796  40    0*251 808  35    0*258 817  35    0

14315 07/31*  0   0   0    0*262 846  60    0*270 850  65    0*277 853  70    0
14315 07/31*263 823  45    0*269 830  55    0*275 835  65    0*279 838  75    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  **

14320 08/01*285 852  70    0*290 850  70    0*297 846  65    0*301 844  55    0
14320 08/01*283 841  85    0*288 843  85    0*293 845  85    0*298 848  85  979 
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  ***

14325 08/02*305 843  45    0*308 841  40    0*311 839  35    0*313 837  30    0
14325 08/02*304 852  60    0*310 856  45    0*315 860  35    0*323 865  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

14330 HR
14330 HRAFL2
        ****

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1.
These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable.  Hurricane status is 
indicated at landfall in the Dominican Republic based upon description of 
damages in Partagas and Diaz (1996b).  A central pressure of 979 mb (on the 
1st from Barnes 1998a) suggests winds of 78 kt - 85 kt chosen for best track 
because of analysis described in Partagas and Diaz (1996b) that the hurricane 
had a smaller than usual size.  (For a given central pressure, a hurricane
with a smaller radius of maximum winds will have stronger winds than a
larger RMW hurricane.)  Assessment as Category 2 at landfall in 
Florida is an upgrade from tropical storm at landfall status indicated in 
Neumann et al. (1999).  Full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, 
due to lack of information about its genesis stage.

1899/02 - 2011 REVISION:

15025 07/28/1899 M= 6  2 SNBR= 363 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2                     
15030 07/28*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*170 695  70    0*183 708  70    0*
15035 07/29*196 723  50    0*205 739  40    0*213 755  40    0*220 768  40    0*
15040 07/30*229 781  40    0*241 796  40    0*251 808  35    0*258 817  35    0*
15045 07/31*263 823  45    0*269 830  55    0*275 835  65    0*279 838  75    0*
15050 08/01*283 841  85    0*288 843  85    0*293 845  85    0*298 848  85  979*
15055 08/02*304 852  60    0*310 856  45    0*315 860  35    0*323 865  30    0*
15060 HRAFL2  

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
2-8/1/1899     1700Z 29.7N  84.7W   85kt  2    ---    979mb    AFL2
2-8/1/1899     1700Z 29.7N  84.7W   85kt  2    10nm   979mb    AFL2
                                               **

A central pressure of 979 mb was recorded at landfall in northwest Florida
around 17Z on the 1st, which suggests winds of 78 kt from the Gulf of
Mexico pressure-wind relationship.  This pressure suggests winds of 74 kt
from the new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship and 77 kt
if the cyclone was deepening.  (Given the lack of inner core observations 
before the 979 mb central pressure measurement, it is uncertain which relationship 
is most appropriate.)  The system had a very small size (140 nmi radius of outer 
close isobar and ~10 nm RMW), the latter of which is substantially smaller than 
climatology (23 nm – Vickery et al. 2000) for this central pressure and latitude.  
A reasonable analog to this system was Hurricane Paula of 2010.  Given the 
combination of a very small size with the assumption of an intensifying cyclone 
tempered somewhat by a slow translational velocity (5 kt), an intensity at 
landfall of 85 kt is analyzed.  This is unchanged and thus retains the Category 2 
from the 2003 reanalysis.

********************************************************************************

14335 08/03/1899 M=22  2 SNBR= 347 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
14335 08/03/1899 M=33  3 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=3
                   **  *       ***             
                       
14340 08/03*118 330  35    0*120 347  35    0*121 360  35    0*123 373  35    0
14340 08/03*117 310  35    0*118 324  45    0*120 340  50    0*122 357  55  995 
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  ***

14345 08/04*125 385  35    0*128 399  40    0*130 412  45    0*132 426  50    0 
14345 08/04*124 374  60    0*126 388  60    0*127 403  60    0*130 420  60    0 
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14350 08/05*135 440  50    0*137 455  55    0*140 470  60    0*143 487  65    0
14350 08/05*135 440  60    0*137 455  60    0*140 470  60    0*143 487  65    0
                     **               **    

14355 08/06*146 506  70    0*148 524  75    0*151 542  80    0*154 558  80    0
14355 08/06*146 506  70    0*148 524  75    0*151 542  80    0*154 558  90    0
                                                                        **

14360 08/07*157 574  85    0*159 590  85    0*162 605  90    0*165 620  90    0
14360 08/07*157 574 100    0*159 590 110    0*162 605 120    0*165 620 130  930
                    ***              ***              ***              ***  ***

14365 08/08*169 634  90    0*174 647  95    0*178 658 100  940*183 668 100    0
14365 08/08*169 634 130    0*174 648 125    0*180 662 120  940*186 673 105    0
                    ***          *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

14370 08/09*187 678 100    0*192 687 100    0*196 697 100    0*199 707 105    0
14370 08/09*189 681 105    0*193 689 105    0*197 698 105    0*201 706 105    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** ***  

14375 08/10*202 716 105    0*205 726 105    0*208 735 105    0*211 744 105    0
14375 08/10*204 714 105    0*207 722 105    0*210 730 105    0*214 737 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

14380 08/11*214 751 105    0*218 758 105    0*222 764 105    0*229 772 105    0
14380 08/11*220 745 105    0*225 753 105    0*230 760 105    0*234 765 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

14385 08/12*235 779 105    0*243 784 105    0*250 789 105    0*255 791 105    0
14385 08/12*238 770 105    0*242 774 105    0*245 777 105    0*251 780 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

14390 08/13*260 793 105    0*265 795 105    0*270 796 105    0*276 798 105    0
14390 08/13*256 782 105    0*262 784 105    0*270 786 105    0*276 788 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***              ***              ***

14395 08/14*283 800 105    0*290 800 105    0*297 800 105    0*303 798 105    0
14395 08/14*283 790 105    0*290 791 105    0*297 790 105    0*303 789 105    0
                ***              ***              ***              ***

14400 08/15*308 796 105    0*314 793 105    0*319 789 105    0*322 784 105    0
14400 08/15*309 787 105    0*313 784 105    0*317 780 105    0*322 775 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

14405 08/16*325 778 105    0*328 774 105    0*330 770 105    0*338 762 105    0
14405 08/16*326 769 105    0*328 762 105    0*330 755 105    0*333 750 105    0
            *** ***              ***              ***          *** *** 

14410 08/17*341 758 105    0*345 755 100    0*349 755  95    0*352 758  90  968
14410 08/17*337 746 105    0*341 744 105    0*345 745 105    0*348 750 105    0 
            *** ***          *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***  ***

14415 08/18*355 761  85  969*359 761  80    0*363 757  80    0*366 751  75    0
14415 08/18*351 757 105    0*357 760  90    0*363 757  80    0*364 755  75    0
            *** *** ***  *** *** ***  **                       *** ***

14420 08/19*370 744  75    0*374 737  70    0*378 730  70    0*381 723  65    0
14420 08/19*364 753  75    0*364 750  70    0*365 747  70    0*370 740  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

14425 08/20*385 715  65    0*388 703  65    0*390 688  60    0E391 671  60    0
14425 08/20*377 729  70    0*383 719  70    0*388 707  70    0*393 690  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **     **** ***  **

14430 08/21E392 653  55    0E391 636  55    0E390 621  55    0E389 606  50    0
14430 08/21*394 673  70    0*395 654  70    0*397 635  70    0*395 613  65    0
           **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

14435 08/22E387 591  50    0E384 575  50    0E380 557  50    0E376 538  50    0
14435 08/22E393 589  60    0E391 565  55    0E387 543  50    0E383 529  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** *** 

14440 08/23E372 518  50    0E369 500  45    0E365 483  45    0E362 468  45    0
14440 08/23E379 520  50    0E373 509  45    0E367 500  45    0E360 490  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

14445 08/24E359 455  45    0E357 440  40    0E357 425  40    0*  0   0   0    0
14445 08/24E354 482  45    0E347 472  40    0E343 460  40    0E342 450  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

(25th through the 4th are new to HURDAT.)
14446 08/25E343 441  40    0E346 433  40    0E353 430  40    0E356 430  40    0
14447 08/26*360 432  40    0*363 433  40    0*365 435  40    0*368 437  40    0
14448 08/27*372 440  40    0*375 442  40    0*377 445  40    0*382 447  40    0
14449 08/28*387 449  40    0*394 450  40    0*400 450  40    0*403 447  40    0
14450 08/29*406 441  40    0*406 435  40    0*405 430  40    0*405 427  40    0
14451 08/30*405 423  40    0*405 419  40    0*403 415  40    0*402 412  40    0
14452 08/31*401 409  40    0*400 405  40    0*400 400  40    0*399 393  40    0
14453 09/01*399 387  40    0*399 379  40    0*400 370  40    0*399 357  40    0
14454 09/02*397 347  45    0*395 333  50    0*390 320  55    0*383 311  60    0
14455 09/03*379 305  65    0*375 296  70    0*373 287  70    0*378 275  65    0
14456 09/04E390 255  60    0E415 225  55    0E450 185  50    0E490 155  45    0

14450 HR NC3

The only major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) are to extend the track 
through the 4th as an extratropical storm based upon available ship 
observations and to reposition the hurricane slightly more offshore Florida 
to account for relatively weak winds along the coast despite having a strong 
hurricane offshore.  Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable though
large alterations to the track that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally
storm number 2.  Central pressure of 995 mb (18Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of
56 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 55 kt utilized in best 
track.  Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 3rd to the 5th.  A central 
pressure of 930 mb (on the 7th) suggests winds of 128 kt from the southern 
wind-pressure relationship - 130 kt utilized in best track.  Winds are 
adjusted accordingly on the 6th to the 8th.  A central pressure of 940 mb 
(around 12Z on the 8th) suggests winds of 119 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 120 kt used in best track.  This agrees with the 
assessment of Boose et al. (2003) in their wind-caused damage estimates of 
extensive Fujita-scale F3 damage from this hurricane.  The 968 and 969 mb 
central pressures originally listed in HURDAT are determined to be peripheral 
pressures (though they do suggest winds of at least 83 kt from the northern 
wind-pressure relationship) - 105 kt retained in best track up to landfall in 
North Carolina.  Landfall as a Category 3 (~105 kt) supported by peripheral 
pressure and wind reports along with extensive wind and surge damage reported 
in Barnes (1998b).  Assessment as Category 3 retains that indicated in the
U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT/Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999).  
Peripheral pressure of 983 mb (at 12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least 
70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt utilized in best 
track.  The hurricane is known as "San Ciriaco" for its impact in Puerto 
Rico.

********************************************************************************

14455 08/29/1899 M=11  3 SNBR= 348 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14455 08/29/1899 M=11  4 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

14460 08/29*  0   0   0    0*150 582  60    0*150 585  60    0*150 598  60    0
14460 08/29*  0   0   0    0*168 573  60    0*168 585  60    0*168 597  60    0
                             *** ***          ***              *** ***   

14465 08/30*150 611  65    0*151 624  70    0*153 637  70    0*156 654  70    0
14465 08/30*168 608  65    0*168 619  70    0*167 630  70    0*166 641  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***    

14470 08/31*159 671  70    0*164 688  70    0*169 704  70    0*172 712  70    0
14470 08/31*166 654  70    0*166 667  70    0*165 680  70    0*166 690  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***   

14475 09/01*177 720  70    0*182 726  70    0*189 731  70    0*195 733  70    0
14475 09/01*167 700  70    0*170 710  70    0*175 720  70    0*185 722  55    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

14480 09/02*202 735  70    0*209 735  75    0*216 734  80    0*225 731  85    0
14480 09/02*192 721  40    0*200 719  50    0*207 717  55    0*217 712  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14485 09/03*233 728  90    0*242 724  90    0*250 720  95    0*264 712 100    0
14485 09/03*226 708  65    0*236 703  75    0*245 700  85    0*257 693  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** *** ***

14490 09/04*278 703 105    0*291 693 105    0*304 683 105    0*315 671 105    0
14490 09/04*270 687  90    0*282 681  90    0*295 675  85    0*316 660  80    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

14495 09/05*327 657 105    0*339 640 100    0E350 623  95    0E359 604  90    0
14495 09/05*333 639  75    0*345 617  65    0E355 595  60    0E361 583  60    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** ***  **      *** *** ***

14500 09/06E366 583  90    0E372 562  85    0E380 544  85    0E389 530  85    0
14500 09/06E366 571  60    0E372 558  60    0E380 544  60    0E389 530  60    0
                ***  **          ***  **               **               **

14505 09/07E398 517  75    0E408 507  70    0E418 498  60    0E429 490  55    0
14505 09/07E398 517  60    0E408 507  60    0E418 498  60    0E429 490  55    0
                     **               **

14510 09/08E441 482  50    0E454 476  45    0E467 471  40    0E481 470  40    0
14515 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and moderate changes to the intensity shown in 
Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 3.  Available observations
of gale force or greater winds (or equivalent in sea level pressure) are as
follows:  60 kt S at 12 UTC on Aug. 31 from a ship at 15.5N, 67W;  45 kt SW
on Aug. 31 at San Juan;  50 kt SE at 12 UTC on Sep. 3 from a ship at 25N,
67.5W;  70 kt on Sep. 3 from the ship "Kilpatrick" at 25N, 68.6W;  40 kt NE 
at 12 UTC on Sep. 4 from a ship at 30N, 69W;  50 kt SSE at 12 UTC on Sep. 4 
from a ship at 30N, 63.7W;  "winds of hurricane force blew over Bermuda in a 
12 hours storm" on Sep. 4.  Winds unchanged along track through Caribbean as 
available observations from ships and coastal stations are consistent with a 
strong tropical storm/weak hurricane.  Winds reduced while storm transited
over Hispanola from Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model, modified
to account for mountainous terrain.  Peak winds reduced from Category 3 
(105 kt) to Category 2 (90 kt), since data from ship reports and observations
in Bermuda supports a weaker hurricane.  Winds reduced accordingly from the 
3rd to the 7th.

********************************************************************************

14520 09/03/1899 M=13  4 SNBR= 349 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14520 09/03/1899 M=13  5 SNBR= 366 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

14525 09/03*132 384  35    0*132 402  35    0*134 420  35    0*138 440  35    0
14530 09/04*142 458  35    0*145 473  35    0*147 483  40    0*149 490  45    0
14535 09/05*150 497  50    0*151 504  55    0*153 511  60    0*155 519  65    0
14540 09/06*158 527  70    0*160 534  70    0*162 542  70    0*164 549  70    0
14545 09/07*165 554  70    0*166 560  75    0*168 568  80    0*170 577  85    0
14550 09/08*173 587  85    0*177 596  90    0*180 606  95    0*183 615 100    0
14550 09/08*172 586  85    0*173 595  90    0*175 605  95    0*180 617 100    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14555 09/09*187 625 100    0*192 634 105    0*198 643 105    0*206 654 105    0
14555 09/09*184 626 100    0*189 636 105    0*195 645 105    0*200 657 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14560 09/10*216 667 105    0*225 680 105    0*234 691 105    0*243 698 105    0
14560 09/10*205 668 105    0*211 677 105    0*217 687 105    0*225 694 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14565 09/11*251 701 105    0*260 701 105    0*268 699 100    0*277 694 100    0
14565 09/11*232 696 105    0*242 698 105    0*250 700 105    0*259 698 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** *** ***      *** *** ***

14570 09/12*285 688  95    0*294 680  90    0*302 672  90    0*309 663  85    0
14570 09/12*269 696 105    0*278 690 105    0*287 683 105    0*298 673 105    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***

14575 09/13*315 654  85    0*323 643  85    0*333 632  85    0*348 619  85    0
14575 09/13*310 660 105    0*322 646 105  939*335 632 105    0*349 619 100    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***  *** ***     ***      ***     ***

14580 09/14*364 604  80    0*381 589  80    0*398 575  70    0*414 563  65    0
14580 09/14*365 605  95    0*385 588  90    0*405 570  85    0*431 551  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **
            
14585 09/15*431 552  55    0E447 541  50    0E464 532  45    0E484 522  40    0
14585 09/15*458 535  75    0E489 525  60    0E520 525  50    0E550 530  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

14590 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm 
number 4.  A central pressure of 939 mb (07Z on the 13th) suggests winds of 
111 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship.  Wind reports from 
Bermuda allow an estimation of 30 nmi for the RMW, which is larger than usual 
(~21 nmi) for this central pressure and latitude (Vickery et al.  2000).  Thus
105 kt chosen for best track during track near Bermuda and winds are adjusted 
accordingly from the 11th to the 13th.  Winds increased on the 14th and 15th 
based upon ship observations and damage reports in Canada.  Extratropical 
transition delayed, as per Partagas and Diaz' suggestion, until after landfall
in Canada.

********************************************************************************


14595 10/02/1899 M= 7  5 SNBR= 350 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
14595 10/02/1899 M= 7  6 SNBR= 367 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                       *       ***

14600 10/02*  0   0   0    0*200 841  35    0*205 847  35    0*211 852  35    0
14600 10/02*  0   0   0    0*200 841  35    0*205 847  35    0*211 851  40    0
                                                                   ***  **

14605 10/03*217 856  35    0*223 860  35    0*230 862  35    0*238 863  35    0
14605 10/03*218 855  40    0*227 860  40    0*237 865  45    0*245 868  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14610 10/04*246 863  35    0*254 862  40    0*262 860  40    0*268 857  35    0
14610 10/04*255 871  50    0*265 872  50    0*273 870  50    0*278 860  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14615 10/05*273 852  35    0*280 843  40    0*290 830  40    0*305 812  40    0
14615 10/05*278 848  50    0*278 835  50    0*280 825  40    0*293 811  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  

14620 10/06*322 792  40    0*339 769  40    0E357 745  35    0E374 720  35    0
14620 10/06*309 796  40    0E324 783  40    0E344 763  35    0E371 727  35    0
            *** ***         **** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

14625 10/07E391 695  35    0E408 669  35    0E426 642  35    0E445 614  35    0
14625 10/07E403 688  35    0E436 648  35    0E463 613  35    0E493 575  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14630 10/08E468 585  35    0E492 556  35    0E518 525  35    0E543 502  35    0
14630 10/08E522 537  35    0E550 499  35    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0
            *** ***          *** ***         **** ***  **     **** ***  **

14635 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm 
number 5.  Winds increased slightly based upon ship reports and land stations 
for the 2nd to the 5th.

********************************************************************************

14636 10/10/1899 M= 5  7 SNBR= 368 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14637 10/10*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*100 350  40    0*107 357  40    0
14638 10/11*113 363  40    0*119 369  40    0*125 375  40    0*132 382  40    0
14639 10/12*138 388  40    0*144 394  40    0*150 400  40    0*157 405  40    0
14640 10/13*163 410  40    0*169 414  40    0*175 418  40    0*183 423  40    0
14641 10/14*193 427  40    0*204 431  40    0*215 435  40    0*  0   0   0    0
14642 TS

Evidence provided in the "Special statement" section of Partagas and Diaz
(1996b) suggests strongly that a tropical storm existed in the eastern
Atlantic from at least the 10th through the 14th of October.  Thus a best
track was created for this newly documented tropical storm.  Based upon
two ships showing gale force winds on the 10th and 14th, respectively,
12Z positions of 12.5N 37.5W (10th) and 21.5N 43.5W (14th) were
estimated.  A smooth track was created based upon these two positions.
Full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of 
information about its genesis and decay stages.

********************************************************************************

1899/08 – 2011 ADDITION:

22826 10/15/1899 M= 4  8 SNBR= 511 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
22828 10/15*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*255 775  30    0*260 763  30    0
22828 10/16*266 752  35    0*273 742  35    0*280 735  40    0*288 735  40    0
22828 10/17*297 743  40    0*306 753  40    0*315 760  35    0*325 762  35    0
22828 10/18*335 757  30    0*345 750  30    0*355 740  25    0*365 725  25    0
22828 TS  

This is a new tropical storm, previously not documented in McAdie et al. (2009).  
Evidence for this system comes from the Historical Weather Map series and the COADS 
ship database.  

October 6: HWM indicates a low near 16N, 48W.  Available observations suggest a 
separate low pressure system was near 17N 58W.  Ship highlights: No gales or low 
pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 7: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 19N, 59W.  
Available observations agree on that location for the center.  
Ship highlights: 20kt NE with a pressure of 1004mb at 21N, 62W at 12Z (HWM). 
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 8: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 19N, 63W.  
Available observations suggest that the center of the system is at 20.5N 62.5W.  
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. 
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 9: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 24N, 70W with a 
cold front approaching from the northwest. Available observations suggest that 
the center of the low was near 24N 66W.  Ship highlights: no gales or low pressures.  
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.  

October 10: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 26N, 67W with a 
cold front extending east and south of the center of the low.  
Available observations suggest that the front does not exist and that the 
center of the low is near 25.5N 68W.  Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. 
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures. 

October 11: HWM indicates two closed lows of at most 1012mb near 21N, 70W and of 
at most 1010 mb near 26N 62W.  Available observations indicate that the former 
low is near 23N 70W and that the latter low may not actually exist. 
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 12: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 18N, 73W.  
Available observations suggest that the low center may be near 20N 72W, but it is 
not certain that a closed low exists on this date.  
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 13: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1007.5mb near 14N, 74.5W.  
Available observations do not support providing a closed low on this date, 
though a well pronounced trough does exist around 72W.  
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 14: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 20N, 77W.  
Available observations do no support providing a closed low on this date, though 
a well pronounced trough exists around 76W.  Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. 
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 15: HWM indicates a trough near 15-25N, 80W.  Available observations suggest 
a closed low exists near 25.5N 77.5W.  Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. 
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 16: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 27N, 72W.  
Available observations indicate that the center of the low is at 28N 73W.  
Ship highlights: 35kt NE with a pressure of 1013mb at 30N, 74.5W at 12Z (HWM); 
35 kt ENE with a pressure of 1016mb at 31N 76W (HWM). 
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 17: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 31N, 76W.  
Available observations suggest that the center of the low is at 31.5N 75W.  
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. 
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

October 18: HWM indicates a low near 33N, 73W with no frontal boundaries in the vicinity.  
Available observations suggest that the center of the low is at 35.5N 72.5W.  
Ship highlights:  No gales or low pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.

Analysis of the ship and station observations indicate that a weak, 
non-baroclinic area of low pressure moved slowly toward the east-northeast 
north of the Lesser Antilles from the 6th to the 10th.  On the 11th, this 
system apparently turned toward the southwest and may have dissipated over or 
near Hispanola on the 12th.  There are no reports of gale force winds in 
association with this system on any of those dates.  On the 13th and 14th, a 
closed circulation does not appear to be in existence, though a well-defined 
trough was still present over the central Caribbean Sea and the Greater 
Antilles.  On the 15th, a center formed in the northern Bahamas along the north 
side of the trough axis and genesis is indicated at 12Z on the 15th.  On the 16th, 
the system moved toward the northeast and intensified, as two separate ships observed 
gale force winds at 12Z.  These are roughly 100 and 175 nm from the center at that time.  
Peak intensity is indicated to be about 40 kt late on the 16th and early on the 17th.  
The temperature gradient across the center on the 16th and 17th appears to be minimal 
~2 F.  The structure of the system appears to have had a large radius of maximum winds 
and might have today been classified as a subtropical storm, instead of a tropical storm.  
Late on the 17th and early on the 18th, the cyclone appears to have weakened as it 
continued off toward the north just east of the Carolinas.  Dissipation of the cyclone 
is analyzed to have occurred late on the 18th, but without transformation into an 
extratropical cyclone.  (The area of low pressure from the 6th to the 12th is not 
considered to be directly part of the lifecycle of the tropical storm.  Instead, the 
system from the 6th to the 12th is considered a separate tropical cyclone [of tropical 
depression intensity] and is included in the 1899 Additional Notes section.)

********************************************************************************

14640 10/23/1899 M=13  6 SNBR= 351 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
14640 10/26/1899 M=10  9 SNBR= 369 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
         **        **  *       ***                        *

14645 10/23*  0   0   0    0*117 803  50    0*120 804  50    0*123 805  50    0
14650 10/24*125 806  55    0*128 807  60    0*130 808  65    0*133 809  70    0
14655 10/25*135 810  70    0*138 810  65    0*140 811  65    0*142 811  70    0
(The 23rd through the 25th are deleted from the revised HURDAT.)

14660 10/26*145 812  70    0*148 813  70    0*152 813  70    0*157 814  70    0
14660 10/26*162 788  35    0*166 789  35    0*170 790  35    0*174 791  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14665 10/27*163 816  70    0*169 817  70    0*175 818  70    0*181 818  70    0
14665 10/27*178 792  40    0*182 793  40    0*185 794  45    0*188 795  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14670 10/28*187 817  70    0*193 814  70    0*199 811  70    0*205 807  70    0
14670 10/28*191 796  55    0*194 797  60    0*200 798  65    0*206 797  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

14675 10/29*213 803  70    0*221 798  70    0*229 794  70    0*243 789  70    0
14675 10/29*213 796  70    0*221 795  70    0*229 794  60    0*239 790  65    0
                ***              ***                   **      *** ***  

14680 10/30*255 786  75    0*267 783  80    0*280 780  85    0*293 780  85    0
14680 10/30*255 786  75    0*267 783  85    0*280 780  95    0*293 783  95    0
                                      **               **          ***  **

14685 10/31*305 783  85    0*319 788  85    0*332 789  80    0*350 784  70    0
14685 10/31*310 786  95    0*327 789  95    0*345 790  75    0*362 783  55    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

14690 11/01E375 773  55    0E401 758  50    0E422 739  45    0E438 717  45    0
14690 11/01E381 771  50    0E401 758  50    0E422 739  45    0E438 717  45    0
            *** ***  **

14695 11/02E453 689  40    0E466 654  40    0E476 612  40    0E484 559  40    0
14700 11/03E489 497  45    0E495 435  50    0E503 380  50    0E513 332  50    0
14705 11/04E524 285  45    0E536 242  40    0E550 202  40    0E578 175  40    0
14710 HR SC1 NC1 
14710 HR SC2 NC2 
         *** ***

One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who otherwise made large,
but reasonable alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), 
originally storm number 6.  After reconsideration of the available 
observations, it was analyzed that the system did begin on the 26th, but
likely south of Jamaica instead of east.  Track is adjusted accordingly on
the 26th through the 28th.  With deletion of the 23rd through the 25th and 
a new genesis point on the 26th south of Hispanola, winds are reduced from 
the 26th to the 28th to reflect a reasonable intensification rate.  A 
peripheral pressure of 996 mb (on 05Z on the 29th) suggests winds of at 
least 55 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for 
best track which is consistent with available ship observations and 
re-analysis work of Perez (2000) that suggests landfall in Cuba as a 
Category 1 hurricane.  Winds reduced slightly on the 29th after Cuban 
landfall.  Ho (1989) estimated a central pressure of 955 mb at landfall in the
Carolinas, based upon a peripheral pressure measurement of 979 mb (10Z on the 
31st), an estimated RMW of 35 nmi, and an environmental pressure of 1012 mb.  
This central pressure suggests winds of 99 kt from the subtropical wind-
pressure relationship.  Given the larger than climatology (~25 nmi from 
Vickery et al. 2000) RMW, 95 kt chosen in the best track for landfall in the 
Carolinas.  Winds increased accordingly on the 30th and 31st.  Landfall as a 
Category 2 in the Carolinas (95 kt) is lowered from the Category 3 shown in 
Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999), but increased from the Category 1 in the 
U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the middle Atlantic states.  
A storm tide of 8' was observed in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 
(Ho 1989) and 9' was observed in Norfolk, Virginia (Roth and Cobb 2001).

********************************************************************************


14711 11/07/1899 M= 4  9 SNBR= 370 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14711 11/07/1899 M= 4 10 SNBR= 370 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0

14712 11/07*117 783  35    0*122 779  35    0*127 775  40    0*136 772  40    0
14713 11/08*146 768  45    0*159 765  50    0*170 765  55    0*180 765  55    0
14714 11/09*189 766  45    0*198 767  45    0*207 767  35    0*225 761  35    0
14715 11/10*244 748  30    0*260 733  30    0*275 713  30    0*284 695  30    0
14716 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
tropical storm - storm number 8 in Partagas and Diaz.

********************************************************************************

1899 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned three additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team decided that there was
enough information to include the third system as a new tropical storm 
into HURDAT.  (See storm 7, 1899.)  The re-analysis team agreed to leave 
the first two out of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) September 24-26, 1899:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) October 7-9, 1899:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.



May 1-6:	Historical Weather Maps indicate that a closed low with a pressure
of at least 1010mb formed on May 1st off the southern coast of Haiti. Through out 
the next two days, it remained fairly stationary along the eastern coast of Cuba 
and around Haiti. On the 4th, the system turned north and on the 5th it started 
heading northeastward. The system then merged with a stationary front on the 6th. 
No gales were found in Historical Weather Maps, Monthly Weather Review. The 
maximum winds found in COADS were 20kt. 

DAY		LAT	LONG		STATUS
May 1		17N	73W		Tropical Depression
May 2		21N	76W		Tropical Depression
May 3		19N	73W		Tropical Depression
May 4		24N	71W		Tropical Depression
May 5		28N	67W		Tropical Depression
May 6		30N	65W		Merged with front



July 19-24:	Historical Weather Maps indicate a low formed near 8N, 30W on the 
20th, but there is not enough information to show that it is a closed low. It 
remains that way as it moved towards the west-southwest. The low does not appear 
on the 22nd, but Historical Weather Maps indicated a trough from 10-13N and 40-45W 
on the 23rd. It then became a closed low on the 24th with a pressure of at most 
1010mb but no observations could be found of the system after that date. 

DAY		LAT	LONG		STATUS
July 19		8N	27W			?
July 20		8N	30W			?
July 21		5N	35W			?
July 22		8N	40W			?	
July 23		10N	43W			?
July 24		11N	47W		Tropical Depression?




August 26-29:	     Historical Weather Maps indicate a low formed near Bermuda, 
around 34N, 66W on August 26. The system headed south and became a closed low 
with a pressure of at most 1015mb on the 27th. Then on the 28th it headed towards 
the southwest until the central east coast of Florida. It remained off the coast 
of Florida on the 29th with a pressure of 1005mb and by the 30th it dissipated. 
The maximum winds found in COADS were 30kt and there were no gales in the Historical 
Weather Maps or the Monthly Weather Review. 

DAY 		LAT	LONG		STATUS
Aug 26		34N	66W		Extratropical Low
Aug 27		31N	66W		Tropical Depression
Aug 28		29N	77W		Tropical Depression
Aug 29		30N	79W		Tropical Depression



******************************************************************************* 

14715 08/27/1900 M=20  1 SNBR= 352 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=4
14715 08/27/1900 M=20  1 SNBR= 371 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=4
                               ***                

14720 08/27*160 435  35    0*160 448  35    0*162 458  35    0*162 470  35    0
14720 08/27*150 421  35    0*152 434  35    0*153 447  35    0*154 456  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14725 08/28*163 482  35    0*163 494  35    0*164 505  35    0*165 516  35    0
14725 08/28*156 466  35    0*158 479  35    0*160 491  35    0*161 503  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14730 08/29*165 527  35    0*166 537  35    0*167 548  40    0*168 559  40    0
14730 08/29*163 514  35    0*164 524  35    0*165 537  40    0*166 551  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14735 08/30*168 570  40    0*169 581  40    0*170 592  45    0*171 605  45    0
14735 08/30*168 566  40    0*169 580  40    0*170 593  45    0*170 606  45    0
                ***              ***              ***          *** ***

14740 08/31*172 620  45    0*174 635  45    0*175 647  45    0*176 657  45    0
14740 08/31*171 619  45    0*172 633  45    0*173 647  45    0*174 656  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          ***              *** ***

14745 09/01*178 668  45    0*179 678  45    0*181 688  45    0*183 699  40    0
14745 09/01*175 664  45    0*176 674  45    0*177 683  45    0*180 692  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14750 09/02*186 709  40    0*189 720  35    0*192 730  35    0*194 740  35    0
14750 09/02*183 703  40    0*187 713  35    0*190 723  35    0*193 732  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14755 09/03*195 748  35    0*196 757  35    0*198 765  35    0*202 773  35    0
14755 09/03*195 741  35    0*197 750  35    0*200 760  35    0*203 766  35    0
                ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14760 09/04*206 782  35    0*210 790  35    0*215 797  35    0*220 803  40    0
14760 09/04*206 772  35    0*210 777  35    0*213 783  35    0*216 789  35    0
                ***              ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

14765 09/05*225 808  50    0*230 813  55    0*235 817  60    0*240 823  80  974
14765 09/05*220 795  35    0*224 801  35    0*230 807  45    0*235 815  55    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  ***

14770 09/06*246 829  85    0*251 835  90    0*255 841  95    0*258 853 100    0
14770 09/06*241 823  60    0*248 832  65    0*255 841  75    0*261 852  85  974
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **      *** *** ***  ***

14775 09/07*260 865 105    0*262 874 105    0*264 887 110    0*266 897 110    0
14775 09/07*265 862  95    0*268 874 105    0*270 887 115    0*272 897 125    0
            *** *** ***      ***              ***     ***      ***     ***

14780 09/08*269 906 115    0*273 915 115    0*278 924 115    0*284 935 115    0
14780 09/08*274 906 125    0*276 915 125    0*278 924 125    0*282 935 125    0
            ***     ***      ***     ***              ***      ***     ***

14785 09/09*291 946 115  964*300 958  65    0*310 969  50    0*322 976  45    0
14785 09/09*289 947 125  936*298 959  90    0*310 969  65    0*322 976  50    0
            *** *** ***  *** *** ***  **               **               **

14790 09/10*334 978  40    0*347 978  40    0*360 976  35    0*374 973  35    0
14790 09/10*334 978  45    0*347 978  40    0*360 976  35    0*374 973  30    0
                     **                                                 **

14795 09/11*388 965  35    0*402 951  35    0E415 924  35    0E426 886  35    0
14795 09/11*388 965  30    0*402 951  30    0E415 924  40    0E426 886  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

14800 09/12E434 842  40    0E443 794  40    0E452 745  40    0E463 693  40    0
14800 09/12E434 842  55    0E443 794  60    0E452 745  65    0E463 693  65    0
                     **               **               **               **

14805 09/13E475 640  45    0E486 587  45    0E497 539  45    0E506 498  45    0
14805 09/13E475 640  65    0E486 587  65    0E497 539  65    0E506 498  60    0
                     **               **               **               **

14810 09/14E514 462  45    0E521 430  45    0E530 400  45    0E541 372  45    0
14810 09/14E514 462  55    0E521 430  50    0E530 400  45    0E541 372  45    0
                     **               **     

14815 09/15E553 346  45    0E567 322  40    0E582 300  40    0E600 280  35    0
14820 HRCTX4

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A peripheral pressure
of 996 mb (at 23Z on the 5th) suggests winds of at least 53 kt from the
Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track.
The 974 mb central pressure originally listed as occurring at 18Z on the
5th actually occurred at 19Z on the 6th.  This central pressure suggests 
winds of 84 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt
chosen for best track.  Winds adjusted on the 5th to the 7th based on
these pressure reports.  Winds maintained at 35 kt during the 4th and 5th 
while traversing over Cuba based upon reports of no more than minimum
gale force winds over land.  The 964 mb pressure listed as a central
pressure (at 00Z on the 9th) is actually a peripheral pressure.  Ho et al. 
(1987) utilized this information to analyze this hurricane as a 936 mb 
hurricane at landfall in Texas with a 14 nmi RMW.  This value is close to
the 931 mb central pressure estimated in Jarrell et al. (1992) at landfall,
which is from an estimate by Connor (1956).  A 936 mb central pressure 
suggests winds of 123 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship.  
Given the slightly smaller than climatological RMW (Vickery et al. 2000, 
~18 nmi), maximum sustained winds at landfall are estimated at 125 kt.  This 
is consistent with the assessment of Category 4 at landfall from Neumann 
et al. (1999) in their Table 6/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT.  
Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 7th through the 9th.  A storm tide of 
20' in Galveston is reported in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).  Inland decay 
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the 
central U.S.  Intensities increased from the 11th to the 14th based upon 
observations of strong winds during extratropical phase in the northern 
United States and Canada (Partagas and Diaz 1996b).

1900/01 - 2011 REVISION:

15550 08/27/1900 M=20  1 SNBR= 371 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=4                     
15555 08/27*150 421  35    0*152 434  35    0*153 447  35    0*154 456  35    0*
15560 08/28*156 466  35    0*158 479  35    0*160 491  35    0*161 503  35    0*
15565 08/29*163 514  35    0*164 524  35    0*165 537  40    0*166 551  40    0*
15570 08/30*168 566  40    0*169 580  40    0*170 593  45    0*170 606  45    0*
15575 08/31*171 619  45    0*172 633  45    0*173 647  45    0*174 656  45    0*
15580 09/01*175 664  45    0*176 674  45    0*177 683  45    0*180 692  40    0*
15585 09/02*183 703  40    0*187 713  35    0*190 723  35    0*193 732  35    0*
15590 09/03*195 741  35    0*197 750  35    0*200 760  35    0*203 766  35    0*
15595 09/04*206 772  35    0*210 777  35    0*213 783  35    0*216 789  35    0*
15600 09/05*220 795  35    0*224 801  35    0*230 807  45    0*235 815  55    0*
15605 09/06*241 823  60    0*248 832  65    0*255 841  75    0*261 852  85  974*
15610 09/07*265 862  95    0*268 874 105    0*270 887 115    0*272 897 125    0*
15615 09/08*274 906 125    0*276 915 125    0*278 924 125    0*282 935 125    0*
15615 09/08*274 906 125    0*276 915 125    0*278 924 120    0*282 935 120    0*
                                                      ***              ***

15620 09/09*289 947 125  936*298 959  90    0*310 969  65    0*322 976  50    0*
15620 09/09*289 947 120  936*298 959  90    0*310 969  65    0*322 976  50    0*
                    ***

15625 09/10*334 978  45    0*347 978  40    0*360 976  35    0*374 973  30    0*
15630 09/11*388 965  30    0*402 951  30    0E415 924  40    0E426 886  50    0*
15635 09/12E434 842  55    0E443 794  60    0E452 745  65    0E463 693  65    0*
15640 09/13E475 640  65    0E486 587  65    0E497 539  65    0E506 498  60    0*
15645 09/14E514 462  55    0E521 430  50    0E530 400  45    0E541 372  45    0*
15650 09/15E553 346  45    0E567 322  40    0E582 300  40    0E600 280  35    0*
15655 HRCTX4                                                                    

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
1-9/9/1900     0200Z 29.1N  95.1W  125kt  4   15nmi   936mb    CTX4
1-9/9/1900     0200Z 29.1N  95.1W  120kt  4   15nmi   936mb    CTX4
                                   ***

A 936 mb central pressure was estimated for the 1900 Galveston Hurricane
at landfall around 02Z on the 9th of September in the 2003 reanalysis.
This pressure suggested a wind of 123 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
pressure-wind relationship.  The new Brown et al. (2006) relationship
suggests 118 kt from the north of 25N equation.  Given the slightly
smaller RMW (~15 nmi) than climatological (18 nmi for this pressure
and landfall location - Vickery et al. 2000) and a near average
translational velocity (12 kt), the winds at landfall are estimated
to be 120 kt.  This is slightly less than that assessed in the
2003 reanalysis (125 kt), but still retains the Category 4 impact
at landfall in Texas.

********************************************************************************

14950 09/13/1900 M= 6  4 SNBR= 355 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14950 09/07/1900 M=13  2 SNBR= 372 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **        **  *       ***

(7th to the 12th are new to HURDAT.)
14951 09/07*145 280  35    0*147 295  40    0*150 310  45    0*152 323  50    0
14952 09/08*153 336  55    0*154 348  60    0*155 360  60    0*157 373  60    0
14953 09/09*158 386  60    0*159 398  60    0*160 410  60    0*162 423  60    0
14954 09/10*163 436  60    0*164 448  60    0*165 460  60    0*167 472  60    0
14955 09/11*168 483  60    0*169 494  60    0*170 505  60    0*172 517  60    0
14956 09/12*173 528  60    0*174 539  60    0*175 550  60    0*177 561  60    0

14955 09/13*185 549  60    0*187 559  60    0*190 570  65    0*193 579  70    0
14955 09/13*180 572  60    0*185 583  60    0*190 593  65    0*195 600  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***              ***          *** ***

14960 09/14*197 587  75    0*202 596  80    0*206 606  80    0*210 615  85    0
14960 09/14*200 606  75    0*205 613  80    0*210 620  80    0*214 625  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14965 09/15*215 624  85    0*221 632  85    0*227 640  85    0*234 647  85    0
14965 09/15*218 631  85    0*222 635  85    0*227 640  85    0*234 647  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***         

14970 09/16*242 652  90    0*251 655  95    0*260 658 100    0*270 659 105    0
14970 09/16*238 650  90    0*243 653  95    0*250 655 100    0*260 657 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14975 09/17*280 657 105    0*290 652 100    0*300 645  95    0*310 635  85    0
14975 09/17*271 656 105    0*282 654 105    0*293 650 100    0*311 641  95    0
            *** ***          *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** ***  **

14980 09/18*321 620  75    0*331 601  65    0*342 580  50    0*350 560  35    0
14980 09/18*332 626  85    0*351 604  75    0*365 580  65    0*380 560  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **      *** ***  **

(19th new to HURDAT.)
14982 09/19*397 533  35    0*415 498  30    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0

14985 HR   

The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) is to extend the track 
back to the 7th based upon ship observations.  Partagas and Diaz otherwise 
made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
originally storm number 4. Winds are increased on the 17th and 18th to 
account for observations in Bermuda on weak (west) side of hurricane.

********************************************************************************

14825 09/09/1900 M=15  2 SNBR= 353 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14825 09/08/1900 M=16  3 SNBR= 373 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **        **  *       ***

(8th not previously in HURDAT.)
14828 09/08*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*100 185  40    0*103 194  45    0

14830 09/09*  0   0   0    0*123 223  60    0*128 232  60    0*131 240  65    0
14830 09/09*106 203  50    0*109 212  55    0*112 221  60    0*116 230  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

14835 09/10*133 248  70    0*134 255  70    0*136 263  70    0*137 270  70    0
14835 09/10*120 239  70    0*125 248  70    0*130 257  70    0*135 263  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14840 09/11*138 277  70    0*140 283  70    0*141 290  75    0*142 298  80    0
14840 09/11*140 270  70    0*145 277  70    0*150 283  75    0*155 291  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14845 09/12*144 308  85    0*147 318  85    0*150 327  85    0*158 334  85    0
14845 09/12*159 299  85    0*164 306  85    0*171 313  85    0*186 320  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14850 09/13*173 342  85    0*189 344  85    0*202 345  85    0*212 345  85    0
14850 09/13*197 326  85    0*208 330  85    0*220 335  85    0*230 339  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14855 09/14*221 344  85    0*230 343  85    0*237 341  85    0*243 340  85    0
14855 09/14*240 343  85    0*250 347  85    0*260 350  85    0*269 346  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14860 09/15*248 338  80    0*253 336  75    0*258 333  75    0*264 329  75    0
14860 09/15*281 339  80    0*290 331  75    0*297 323  75    0*300 318  75    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14865 09/16*268 327  75    0*270 323  75    0*274 319  75    0*276 316  75    0
14865 09/16*302 313  75    0*304 307  75    0*304 300  75    0*303 295  75    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14870 09/17*278 312  75    0*279 308  75    0*280 303  75    0*278 295  75    0
14870 09/17*301 290  75    0*295 288  75    0*290 290  75    0*288 295  75    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** 

14875 09/18*273 294  75    0*270 300  75    0*268 312  70    0*265 323  70    0
14875 09/18*286 301  75    0*284 307  75    0*282 315  70    0*278 325  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14880 09/19*263 336  65    0*262 351  65    0*261 366  65    0*264 382  65    0
14880 09/19*272 337  65    0*267 349  65    0*265 365  65    0*266 381  65    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14885 09/20*270 399  65    0*275 416  60    0*280 430  50    0*284 442  45    0
14890 09/21*289 451  40    0*293 459  40    0*296 466  35    0*298 472  35    0
14895 09/22*299 477  35    0*300 483  35    0*301 489  35    0*302 495  30    0
14900 09/23*303 502  30    0*303 508  25    0*304 515  25    0*306 522  20    0
14905 HR         

The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), is to extend the track 
back to the 8th based upon ship observations.  Partagas and Diaz otherwise 
made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
originally storm number 2.  A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (at 12Z on the 
8th) suggests winds of at least 39 kt from the southern wind-pressure 
relationship - 40 kt chosen for best track.  

********************************************************************************

14910 09/10/1900 M= 6  3 SNBR= 354 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
14910 09/11/1900 M= 5  4 SNBR= 374 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **         *  *       ***   

14915 09/10*  0   0   0    0*211 831  35    0*218 837  35    0*227 851  35    0
(10th deleted from HURDAT.)

14920 09/11*235 863  35    0*243 874  40    0*251 880  40    0*259 893  45    0
14920 09/11*200 852  35    0*209 860  40    0*218 870  40    0*228 876  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14925 09/12*266 901  45    0*273 905  45    0*280 905  45    0*287 901  45    0
14925 09/12*238 882  45    0*248 887  45    0*260 893  45    0*270 897  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

14930 09/13*294 896  45    0*300 891  35    0*306 887  35    0*310 884  35    0
14930 09/13*281 898  45    0*291 895  40    0*300 890  35    0*305 886  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

14935 09/14*313 881  35    0*316 878  35    0*320 874  35    0*324 869  35    0
14935 09/14*310 883  30    0*315 878  30    0*320 874  30    0*324 869  30    0
            *** ***  **      ***      **               **               **

14940 09/15*328 863  35    0*333 855  35    0*337 847  30    0*340 833  25    0
14940 09/15*328 863  25    0*333 855  25    0*337 847  25    0*340 833  25    0
                     **               **               **

14945 TS 

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  This tropical storm was 
originally storm 3 in Neumann et al.  The track changes are found
to be reasonable.  A peripheral pressure of 1005 mb (around 12Z on the 13th) 
suggests winds of at least 34 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure 
relationship - 35 kt retained in best track.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and 
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the southeast U.S.  

********************************************************************************


14990 10/04/1900 M=11  5 SNBR= 356 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
14990 10/04/1900 M=11  5 SNBR= 375 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

14995 10/04*  0   0   0    0*212 613  35    0*223 623  35    0*232 628  35    0
14995 10/04*  0   0   0    0*212 613  30    0*222 623  30    0*232 628  30    0
                                      **      ***      **               **

15000 10/05*245 631  35    0*253 637  35    0*259 644  40    0*263 653  40    0
15000 10/05*242 631  30    0*251 637  30    0*259 644  30    0*263 653  30    0
            ***      **      ***      **               **               **

15005 10/06*267 662  40    0*270 671  40    0*272 680  40    0*273 688  40    0
15005 10/06*267 662  30    0*270 671  30    0*272 680  30    0*273 688  30    0
                     **               **               **               **

15010 10/07*273 695  40    0*273 702  45    0*274 709  45    0*275 716  45    0
15010 10/07*273 695  35    0*273 702  35    0*274 709  40    0*275 716  45    0
                     **               **               **     

15015 10/08*277 722  50    0*280 727  50    0*283 728  55    0*287 726  55    0
15015 10/08*275 724  50    0*271 729  50    0*265 730  55    0*264 721  55    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15020 10/09*293 721  60    0*299 715  60    0*306 708  60    0*313 701  60    0
15020 10/09*269 715  60    0*276 711  60    0*290 705  60    0*307 695  60    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15025 10/10*321 695  60    0*329 688  55    0E340 680  50    0E355 672  45    0
15025 10/10*334 688  60    0E364 685  55    0E385 685  50    0E398 685  45    0
            *** ***         **** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15030 10/11E376 664  40    0E397 655  40    0E415 647  40    0E428 639  40    0
15030 10/11E412 685  40    0E428 681  40    0E440 670  40    0E452 639  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** 

15035 10/12E438 631  40    0E448 623  40    0E462 615  40    0E480 597  40    0
15035 10/12E460 606  40    0E471 584  40    0E485 565  40    0E497 549  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15040 10/13E499 564  35    0E519 527  35    0E537 500  35    0E553 482  35    0
15040 10/13E511 531  35    0E523 516  35    0E537 500  35    0E553 482  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          

15045 10/14E568 468  35    0E582 457  35    0E595 451  35    0*  0   0   0    0
15050 TS  

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track
and intensity changes are found to be reasonable.  However, the track
change on the 11th to bring it inland as an extratropical storm over
Nova Scotia has only moderate evidence and thus is altered with some
uncertainty.  Small track alterations on the 4th and 5th to allow for a 
more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************

15055 10/08/1900 M= 8  6 SNBR= 357 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
15055 10/10/1900 M= 6  6 SNBR= 376 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **         *          ***

15060 10/08*  0   0   0    0*178 855  35    0*181 866  40    0*189 879  40    0
15065 10/09*196 889  35    0*203 898  35    0*210 905  35    0*216 910  35    0
(8th to 9th deleted in new HURDAT.)

15070 10/10*220 913  35    0*225 913  35    0*232 910  35    0*241 904  35    0
15070 10/10*  0   0   0    0*210 914  35    0*220 910  35    0*235 907  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15075 10/11*250 896  35    0*260 885  40    0*270 872  40    0*280 857  40    0
15075 10/11*248 902  35    0*261 894  40    0*273 885  40    0*285 866  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15080 10/12*290 840  40    0*300 824  35    0E311 808  35    0E322 793  35    0
15080 10/12*292 842  40    0*300 824  35    0E311 808  35    0E322 793  35    0
            *** ***    

15085 10/13E334 780  35    0E346 766  35    0E358 754  35    0E369 749  35    0
15090 10/14E380 745  35    0E392 741  35    0E403 737  35    0E419 724  30    0
15095 10/15E441 707  30    0E468 686  25    0E497 661  25    0E528 638  25    0
15100 TS       

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations to
the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track changes are found to
be reasonable.

********************************************************************************

15105 10/23/1900 M= 7  7 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15105 10/24/1900 M= 6  7 SNBR= 377 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **         *          ***

15110 10/23*  0   0   0    0*133 602  35    0*138 612  35    0*142 621  35    0
(23rd removed from HURDAT.)

15115 10/24*146 630  35    0*151 638  35    0*157 646  35    0*163 653  35    0
15115 10/24*150 645  30    0*155 652  30    0*160 660  30    0*165 668  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15120 10/25*170 660  35    0*176 667  35    0*183 674  35    0*190 682  35    0
15120 10/25*170 676  30    0*175 685  30    0*180 695  30    0*185 705  30    0
                ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15125 10/26*196 690  35    0*203 699  35    0*210 708  35    0*216 719  40    0
15125 10/26*190 715  30    0*195 725  30    0*200 733  35    0*206 739  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

15130 10/27*222 729  40    0*231 739  40    0*240 749  40    0*251 749  45    0
15130 10/27*212 744  40    0*218 748  40    0*225 750  40    0*236 748  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15135 10/28*279 742  45    0*293 729  45    0*307 712  45    0*321 697  45    0
15135 10/28*256 744  45    0*272 738  45    0*290 728  45    0*315 714  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15140 10/29*335 683  45    0*348 668  45    0*360 653  45    0E388 630  45    0
15140 10/29E348 693  45    0E380 673  45    0E415 650  45    0E450 630  45    0
           **** ***         **** ***         **** ***          *** 

15145 TS 

One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who otherwise made large,
but reasonable alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). 
Track is extended back to the 24th based upon available observational
data that indicates the system existed as a tropical depression in
the Caribbean.

********************************************************************************

1900 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned four additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

1) June 9-13, 1900:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) June 12-17, 1900:  One gale force report, insufficient to determine if
   system was tropical storm intensity.
3) July 25-27, 1900:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
4) October 4-5, 1900:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.




January 14-19:	Historical Weather Maps indicate a trough located on 37W 
(between 15-30N) on January 14. There were two gales; one at 20N, 40W and 
the other at 20N, 47W. Yet, all the observations had winds coming from 
the E or ENE which shows that there wasn’t enough evidence to show that it 
was a closed low. The trough was located at about 42W on the 15th and at 
48W on the 16th. The system finally became a closed low on the 17th, at 
about 22N, 50W. The closed low continued a northeast movement on the 18th 
and 19th and became extratropical on the 19th as it merged with a front. 

DAT		LAT	LONG		STATUS
Jan 14			37W		Trough
Jan 15			42W		Trough
Jan 16			48W		Trough
Jan 17		22N	50W		Tropical Depression
Jan 18		23N	44W		Tropical Depression
Jan 19		30N	35W		Extratropical




June 9-17:      This system appeared on Historical Weather Maps as a closed 
low with a pressure of at most 1012mb on June 9. The system was located at 
about 21N, 66W on the 10th and it may have attained tropical storm intensity 
because a ship located near 23N, 65W reported 35kt SE winds and a pressure 
of 1009mb. On the 11th, the system was in the vicinity of Turks Is. and 
it then made a loop and headed back towards the northeast. On the 14th, 
Historical Weather Maps indicates a closed low of at most 1005mb located 
near 27N, 64W and from this day on it begins to move west-northwestward. 
There were two other gales reported by ships on the 15th and the 16th with 
winds of 40kt and 35kt, respectively. However, the pressures were 1030mb 
and 1031mb which were too high to be considered as correct observations, 
hence the gales were disregarded. The last evidence of a closed low was on 
the 17th at 29N, 74W. The system then continued heading towards the northeast 
as an extratropical storm from the 18th to the 21st of June. There were no 
gales found in COADS or Monthly Weather Review.

DAY		LAT	LONG 	STATUS
June 9		21N	65W	Tropical Depression		
June 10		21N	66W	Tropical Storm?
June 11		21N	70W	Tropical Depression
June 12		22N	67W	Tropical Depression
June 13		26N	65W	Tropical Depression
June 14		27N	64W	Tropical Depression
June 15		27N	69W	Tropical Depression
June 16		28N	70W	Tropical Depression
June 17		29N	74W	Tropical Depression
June 18		36N	71W	Extratropical Low
June 19		36N	69W	Extratropical Low
June 20		39N	61W	Extratropical Low
June 21		41N	60W	Extratropical Low



June 9-14:	The system appears in the Historical Weather Map on 
June 9 as a closed low of at most 1010mb that formed off the northern west 
coast of Florida. The system remained stationary on the 10th and then 
moved slightly southwest. It then moved northward and made landfall on 
the 12th on the eastern coast of Louisiana. It dissipated after the 14th. 
There was no information found in the Monthly Weather Review and no gales 
were found in COADS or in the Historical Weather Maps. 

DAY		LAT	LONG		STATUS
June 9		27N	86W		Tropical Depression
June 10		28N	85W		Tropical Depression
June 11		27N	87W		Tropical Depression
June 12		29N	90W		Tropical Depression
June 13 	30N	90W		Tropical Depression
June 14		33N	89W		Tropical Depression 



******************************************************************************* 


15150 06/10/1901 M= 5  1 SNBR= 359 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
15150 06/11/1901 M= 5  1 SNBR= 378 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **                    ***

15155 06/10*171 822  35    0*179 827  35    0*187 830  35    0*195 832  35    0
(10th is removed from the revised HURDAT.)

15160 06/11*204 835  35    0*212 837  35    0*219 840  35    0*226 843  35    0
15160 06/11*193 823  25    0*200 830  25    0*207 835  30    0*214 839  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15165 06/12*233 846  35    0*240 849  35    0*247 852  35    0*254 856  35    0
15165 06/12*221 843  35    0*229 847  35    0*240 850  35    0*251 852  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15170 06/13*262 860  35    0*269 864  35    0*276 868  35    0*283 871  35    0
15170 06/13*261 852  35    0*274 850  35    0*285 847  35    0*295 846  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15175 06/14*290 874  35    0*297 877  35    0*304 880  35    0*313 883  35    0
15175 06/14*305 847  30    0*315 848  30    0*325 850  25    0*338 854  25    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(15th is new to HURDAT.)
15177 06/15*349 862  25    0*359 870  25    0*370 880  25    0*385 897  25    0

15180 TS   

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations
to the track and intensity from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These
track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable.  Winds reduced to 
tropical depression status on 11th, since observations indicate that tropical 
storm status was not reached until the 12th.  Inland decay model of 
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the southeast U.S.  

********************************************************************************

15185 07/02/1901 M= 9  2 SNBR= 360 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
15185 07/01/1901 M=10  2 SNBR= 379 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **        **          ***

(1st is new to HURDAT.)
15187 07/01*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0* 90 540  35    0* 95 550  35    0

15190 07/02*  0   0   0    0*132 575  35    0*131 590  35    0*130 607  35    0
15190 07/02*102 562  35    0*108 574  35    0*115 587  35    0*123 601  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15195 07/03*130 624  35    0*130 640  40    0*131 657  40    0*132 674  40    0
15195 07/03*132 619  35    0*142 636  40    0*153 657  40    0*159 674  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          ***              *** 

15200 07/04*133 690  45    0*135 706  50    0*137 720  55    0*140 732  55    0
15200 07/04*163 692  45    0*166 708  50    0*170 725  55    0*174 736  55    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15205 07/05*142 742  60    0*145 752  60    0*149 762  60    0*154 774  60    0
15205 07/05*178 746  60    0*183 755  60    0*187 765  60    0*189 774  60    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          ***

15210 07/06*159 787  55    0*164 799  55    0*170 810  55    0*176 820  50    0
15210 07/06*192 783  60    0*194 793  60    0*197 803  60    0*201 810  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15215 07/07*181 829  50    0*187 838  50    0*193 846  50    0*199 854  45    0
15215 07/07*206 819  60    0*210 826  60    0*215 835  60    0*219 843  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15220 07/08*206 862  45    0*213 870  45    0*220 878  45    0*227 884  45    0
15220 07/08*222 850  60    0*226 859  60    0*230 870  60    0*235 879  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15225 07/09*235 894  45    0*243 903  45    0*251 912  40    0*260 924  40    0
15225 07/09*241 887  60    0*248 896  60    0*253 905  60    0*260 919  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **          ***  **

15230 07/10*269 938  40    0*279 952  40    0*289 965  35    0*300 978  30    0
15230 07/10*269 935  55    0*279 950  50    0*289 965  35    0*300 978  30    0
                ***  **          ***  **      

15235 TS  

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds boosted from the 6th to 
the 10th based upon 60 kt ship observation on the 9th.  A 4' storm tide was 
reported in Galveston, Texas (Connor 1956).

********************************************************************************

15240 07/05/1901 M= 9  3 SNBR= 361 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
15240 07/04/1901 M=10  3 SNBR= 380 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
         **        **          ***

(4th is new to HURDAT.)
15242 07/04* 95 555  30    0*102 558  30    0*110 563  30    0*118 570  30    0

15245 07/05*  0   0   0    0*136 600  35    0*141 608  35    0*146 617  35    0
15245 07/05*125 578  35    0*132 587  35    0*137 597  35    0*144 608  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15250 07/06*150 625  35    0*155 633  40    0*159 641  45    0*163 648  50    0
15250 07/06*150 619  35    0*155 630  40    0*159 641  45    0*166 651  50    0
                ***              ***                           *** ***  

15255 07/07*168 655  60    0*172 661  65    0*177 668  70    0*189 680  75    0
15255 07/07*174 663  55    0*182 676  60    0*190 690  60    0*200 702  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15260 07/08*205 697  80    0*222 715  80    0*238 730  85    0*254 742  85    0
15260 07/08*213 713  60    0*228 722  60    0*245 733  60    0*264 745  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15265 07/09*269 752  85    0*285 757  85    0*300 756  85    0*314 748  85    0
15265 07/09*277 758  60    0*290 766  60    0*305 767  60    0*318 759  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15270 07/10*326 740  85    0*336 738  85    0*345 737  85    0*352 739  85    0
15270 07/10*330 751  65    0*337 742  70    0*346 738  70    0*357 738  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15275 07/11*356 741  80    0*360 750  75    0*356 762  65    0*353 764  50    0
15275 07/11*361 746  70    0*361 756  70    0*356 762  60    0*353 764  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               ** 

15280 07/12*347 766  40    0*342 768  40    0*340 771  35    0*339 776  35    0
15285 07/13*338 781  35    0*338 788  35    0*338 795  35    0*339 802  30    0
15285 07/13*340 781  35    0*342 788  35    0*345 795  35    0*348 802  30    0
            ***              ***              ***              ***

15290 HR NC1    

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Winds 
are reduced from the 7th to the 11th, since observations indicate that the 
system did not obtain hurricane force until about the 10th.  Additionally, 
there is no evidence for the system attaining more than a Category 1 hurricane
status, thus peak winds are reduced from 85 kt down to 70 kt.  Landfall
as a Category 1 hurricane in the U.S. as reported in Table 6 of Neumann
et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT is retained.  The 
storm is known as "San Cirilo" for its impacts in Puerto Rico.

Storm #3, 1901 – 2012 Revision:

16150 07/04/1901 M=10  3 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
16155 07/04* 95 555  30    0*102 558  35    0*110 563  30    0*118 570  30    0*
16155 07/04* 95 555  30    0*102 558  30    0*110 563  30    0*118 570  30    0*
                                      **

16160 07/05*125 578  35    0*132 587  35    0*137 597  35    0*144 608  35    0*
16165 07/06*150 619  35    0*155 630  40    0*159 641  45    0*166 651  50    0*
16170 07/07*174 663  55    0*182 676  60    0*190 690  60    0*200 702  60    0*
16175 07/08*213 713  60    0*228 722  60    0*245 733  60    0*264 745  60    0*
16180 07/09*277 758  60    0*290 766  60    0*305 767  60    0*318 759  60    0*
16185 07/10*330 751  65    0*337 742  70    0*346 738  70    0*357 738  70    0*
16190 07/11*361 746  70    0*361 756  70    0*356 762  60    0*353 764  50    0*
16195 07/12*347 766  40    0*342 768  40    0*340 771  35    0*339 776  35    0*
16200 07/13*340 781  35    0*342 788  35    0*345 795  35    0*348 802  30    0*
16205 HR NC1       

Typographic error:  35 kt at 06Z on the 4th of July should be 30 kt.


********************************************************************************

15295 08/04/1901 M=15  4 SNBR= 362 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
15295 08/02/1901 M=17  4 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
         **        **          ***                        *

(2nd and 3rd are new to HURDAT.)
15296 08/02*326 384  25    0*323 391  25    0*320 400  25    0*316 411  25    0
15298 08/03*311 423  25    0*305 437  25    0*300 450  25    0*293 463  25    0

15300 08/04*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*264 495  35    0*263 516  35    0
15300 08/04*286 473  30    0*277 488  30    0*270 500  30    0*263 516  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **

15305 08/05*261 535  35    0*258 553  35    0*257 569  35    0*256 583  35    0
15305 08/05*256 532  30    0*249 548  30    0*245 565  30    0*242 579  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15310 08/06*256 596  35    0*255 609  35    0*254 623  35    0*253 639  35    0
15310 08/06*239 593  30    0*237 608  30    0*237 623  30    0*239 639  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **      ***      **

15315 08/07*252 656  35    0*250 673  35    0*249 688  35    0*249 702  40    0
15315 08/07*242 657  30    0*246 675  30    0*250 690  30    0*253 702  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **

15320 08/08*248 714  40    0*248 725  40    0*248 734  40    0*249 743  40    0
15320 08/08*255 716  30    0*255 727  30    0*255 740  30    0*254 745  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15325 08/09*250 750  40    0*250 756  40    0*252 764  40    0*253 771  40    0
15325 08/09*250 750  35    0*250 756  35    0*252 764  40    0*253 771  40    0
                     **               **

15330 08/10*254 778  40    0*256 784  40    0*258 790  40    0*261 796  40    0
15335 08/11*264 803  40    0*267 809  35    0*269 815  35    0*270 821  40    0
15335 08/11*264 804  35    0*267 813  35    0*269 821  40    0*270 827  45    0
                ***  **          ***              ***  **          ***  **

15340 08/12*272 828  45    0*273 835  55    0*274 842  65    0*274 850  70    0
15340 08/12*272 832  50    0*273 837  55    0*274 842  65    0*274 848  70    0
                ***  **          ***                               ***  

15345 08/13*275 859  75    0*275 868  80    0*275 876  80    0*276 884  85    0
15345 08/13*275 854  75    0*275 860  80    0*275 867  80    0*276 876  80    0
                ***              ***              ***              ***  **

15350 08/14*278 890  85    0*279 895  85    0*281 897  85    0*284 898  85    0
15350 08/14*279 887  80    0*283 893  80    0*287 897  80    0*291 898  80    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **      ***      **

15355 08/15*288 898  80    0*293 897  75    0*299 895  65  973*305 892  50    0
15355 08/15*294 895  80    0*297 892  80    0*300 890  80    0*305 887  70  973 
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **  ***

15360 08/16*311 890  40    0*318 889  35    0E326 892  35    0E335 895  30    0
15360 08/16*310 883  60    0*315 881  45    0*320 880  40    0*330 887  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **
2
15365 08/17E344 898  30    0E354 900  30    0E363 899  25    0E371 893  25    0
15365 08/17E340 895  30    0E350 900  30    0E363 899  25    0E371 893  25    0
            *** ***          ***

15370 08/18E378 887  25    0E384 878  25    0E390 868  25    0E398 854  25    0
15375 HR LA2 MS2 
15375 HR LA1 MS1 AL1
         *** *** ***

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations 
to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track 
and intensity changes are found to be reasonable.  Analysis of 973 mb 
central pressure from Ho et al. (1987) is based upon a peripheral 
pressure of 993 mb from Mobile along with an estimated 33 nmi radius of 
maximum wind.  (This analysis of central pressure was very similar to the
estimation in Jarrell et al. (1992) taken from Connor (1956) of 972 mb.)
A 973 mb central pressure suggests 85 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship.  Given that this radius of maximum wind is
larger than climatological value (of 23 nmi for this latitude and
central pressure - Vickery et al. 2000), a maximum sustained windspeed
of 80 kt is chosen at landfall making this system a Category 1 hurricane.
This is a downgrade from the Category 2 at U.S. landfall reported in
Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in 
HURDAT.  Winds from the 13th to the 15th adjusted accordingly.  Winds 
increased on the 16th based upon observed wind reports for the day.  Storm 
tides of 8' were observed in Port Eads, Louisiana and Mobile, Alabama 
(Connor 1956, Cline 1926).

1901/04 - 2011 REVISION:

16160 08/02/1901 M=17  4 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
16165 08/02*326 384  25    0*323 391  25    0*320 400  25    0*316 411  25    0*
16170 08/03*311 423  25    0*305 437  25    0*300 450  25    0*293 463  25    0*
16175 08/04*286 473  30    0*277 488  30    0*270 500  30    0*263 516  30    0*
16180 08/05*256 532  30    0*249 548  30    0*245 565  30    0*242 579  30    0*
16185 08/06*239 593  30    0*237 608  30    0*237 623  30    0*239 639  30    0*
16190 08/07*242 657  30    0*246 675  30    0*250 690  30    0*253 702  30    0*
16195 08/08*255 716  30    0*255 727  30    0*255 740  30    0*254 745  30    0*
16200 08/09*250 750  35    0*250 756  35    0*252 764  40    0*253 771  40    0*
16205 08/10*254 778  40    0*256 784  40    0*258 790  40    0*261 796  40    0*
16210 08/11*264 804  35    0*267 813  35    0*269 821  40    0*270 827  45    0*
16215 08/12*272 832  50    0*273 837  55    0*274 842  65    0*274 848  70    0*
16220 08/13*275 854  75    0*275 860  80    0*275 867  80    0*276 876  80    0*
16225 08/14*279 887  80    0*283 893  80    0*287 897  80    0*291 898  80    0*
16225 08/14*279 887  80    0*283 893  80    0*287 897  75    0*291 898  75    0*
                                                       **               **

16230 08/15*294 895  80    0*297 892  80    0*300 890  80    0*305 887  70  973*
16230 08/15*294 895  75    0*297 892  75    0*300 890  75    0*305 887  70  973*
                     **               **               **     

16235 08/16*310 883  60    0*315 881  45    0*320 880  40    0*330 887  35    0*
16240 08/17E340 895  30    0E350 900  30    0E363 899  25    0E371 893  25    0*
16245 08/18E378 887  25    0E384 878  25    0E390 868  25    0E398 854  25    0*
16250 HR LA1 MS1 AL1                                                            


U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
4-8/14/1901    2110Z 29.3N  89.6W   80kt  1    ---   (973mb)   LA1
4-8/14/1901    2110Z 29.3N  89.6W   75kt  1    ---   (973mb)   LA1
                                    **      

4-8/15/1901    1700Z 30.4N  88.8W   80kt  1   35nmi   973mb    MS1,AL1
4-8/15/1901    1700Z 30.4N  88.8W   75kt  1   35nmi   973mb    MS1,AL1
                                    **

An analyzed 973 mb central pressure at landfall in Mississippi in
the 2003 reanalysis suggested winds of 85 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
pressure-wind relationship.  The new Brown et al. (2006) relationship
for north of 25N suggests winds of 81 kt.  Given both the large
size (RMW of ~35 nmi compared with climatology of 23 nmi for this pressure
and latitude - Vickery et al. 2000) and the slow motion at landfall
(5 kt), this suggests about a 75 kt hurricane at landfall.  This is
a slight reduction from the 80 kt in the 2003 reanalysis, but retains
the Category 1 status.  

********************************************************************************


15376 08/18/1901 M= 5  5 SNBR= 382 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15377 08/18*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*115 530  30    0*116 540  30    0
15378 08/19*117 548  30    0*119 557  30    0*120 567  35    0*121 577  35    0
15379 08/20*122 586  40    0*122 595  40    0*123 603  45    0*123 612  45    0
15380 08/21*124 622  40    0*124 633  35    0*125 645  30    0*126 658  30    0
15381 08/22*126 671  25    0*126 683  25    0*127 695  25    0*128 710  25    0
15382 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented
tropical storm.

********************************************************************************

1901/06 - 2008 ADDITION:

16291 08/25/1901 M= 6  6 SNBR= 383 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
16291 08/25*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*160 220  35    0*162 233  35    0
16291 08/26*164 246  40    0*167 258  45    0*170 270  50    0*173 280  55    0
16291 08/27*176 290  60    0*178 300  65    0*180 310  70    0*182 319  70    0
16291 08/28*185 327  70    0*188 334  65    0*190 340  60    0*192 346  60    0
16291 08/29*194 353  55    0*197 361  55    0*200 370  50    0*204 380  50    0
16291 08/30*209 390  45    0*214 400  45    0*220 410  40    0*228 420  35    0
16291 HR

This is a new hurricane, previously not documented in Neumann et al. 
(1999).  Evidence for this system comes from newspaper accounts, the Historical 
Weather Map series, and the COADS ship database.

August 24:  The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no significant features of 
interest with 1010 mb and NE winds 15 kt in Senegal.  No gale force winds (or equivalent 
in pressure) were observed.

August 25:  The Historical Weather Map analysis shows a trough extending westward out 
of West Africa along 16N with the Senegal observation with WSW winds 15 kt and 1010 mb.  
Available observations suggest a closed center may have existed near 16N 22W.  No gale 
force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed.

August 26:  The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no significant features of interest.  
Available observations suggest a closed center may have existed near 17N 27W.  No gale 
force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed.

August 27:  The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no significant features of interest.  
Available observations suggest a closed center was near 18N 31W.  
Ship highlights:  70 kt at 19N 31W (no time, Barbados Agricultural Reporter).
"The Norwegian barque "Professor Johnson", 1,058 tons, Captain Olsen, called at this 
port yesterday leaking badly after a voyage of 84 days from Ship Island [Alabama] with a 
cargo of 775,000 feet of pitch pine, bound for Buenos Ayres. The Captain reports he 
encountered a severe hurricane on the 27th of August when in about 19N 31W through which 
the ship rode with difficulty. Four days later the vessel was brought face-to-face with a 
second hurricane. She was then in about 19N 32W. [The latitude may be a typographical error 
and the correct latitude may be 16N.] The hurricane carried away the ship's foretopmast, 
main topgallant mast and gear attached..." (Barbados Agricultural Reporter, 18 September 1901).  

August 28:  The Historical Weather Map series shows no features of interest.  Available 
observations and continuity from the previous day suggest a center may have existed near 
19N 34W.  No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed.  “Had Unsettled 
Weather…The British steamship Trevelynn, 1,986 tons net, Captain James Sincock, from St. 
Vincent, Cape de Verde, in ballast...has arrived at the point and will load for Rotterdam. 
She reports having sailed Aug. 27; had unsettled weather, with fresh northwest and southwest
winds in latitude 17 north, and between longitude 34 and 41 west, thence moderating trades 
and good weather to port, arriving on the evening of Sept. 16” (New Orleans Picayune, 
Wednesday, September 18, 1901).  

August 29:  The Historical Weather Map series shows no feature of interest where this system 
may have existed, though it does show a closed low near 15N 23W in connection with storm #7 
(previously #6).  Available observations and continuity from the previous day suggest a center 
may have existed near 20N 37W.  No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed.

August 30:  The Historical Weather Map series shows no features of interest where this system 
may have existed, though it does show a closed low near 15N 30W in connection with storm #7 
(previously #6).  Available observations and continuity suggest a center may have existed near 
22N 41W.  No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed.

Genesis of this tropical cyclone likely occurred on the 25th from an African easterly wave.  
The description from the barque Professor Johnson is the basis for analyzing this cyclone as 
a hurricane on the 27th.  With no barometric readings, the intensity is assigned to peak on 
this date as a Category 1 hurricane (70 kt).  The steamship Trevelynn, while not providing 
specific observations of gale force, likely encountered the southern portion of the cyclone 
on the 28th-39th between 34-41W.  Observations after the 28th become quite sparse for this 
cyclone – as is typical for systems in the eastern subtropical Atlantic – and it is analyzed 
that it decayed on the 29th and 30th and dissipated late on the 30th.  This portion of the 
lifecycle of the cyclone is quite uncertain.  (It is of note that the barque Professor Johnson 
also encountered a second hurricane off of the Cape Verde Islands on the 31st of August, which 
is the previous storm #6 in 1901, already documented in HURDAT.)

It is of note that this system is quite unique in its inclusion into HURDAT during the 
post-1871 era based upon a single observation.  However, main reason for requiring two 
independent observations of either gale force and/or 1005 mb or less was to insure that a 
single observation of minimal tropical storm intensity was not simply an instrumentation 
problem or due to a typographical error.  In this case, it is highly unlikely that this 
system is not a tropical cyclone of at least tropical storm intensity because of either of 
these two issues.]


********************************************************************************

15380 08/30/1901 M=13  5 SNBR= 363 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15380 08/29/1901 M=14  7 SNBR= 383 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0    
         **        **  *       ***  

(29th new to HURDAT.)
15383 08/29*  0   0   0    0*136 224  30    0*137 240  35    0*139 259  35    0

15385 08/30*141 360  50    0*142 372  50    0*145 380  55    0*147 387  60    0
15385 08/30*141 274  40    0*142 288  40    0*143 302  45    0*144 315  45    0
                ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15390 08/31*149 395  65    0*152 404  70    0*156 414  70    0*160 426  75    0
15390 08/31*145 330  50    0*147 345  50    0*150 363  55    0*151 377  55    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15395 09/01*165 440  80    0*171 453  80    0*176 462  85    0*181 470  85    0
15395 09/01*154 390  60    0*157 404  60    0*163 420  65    0*168 432  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15400 09/02*185 474  85    0*190 480  85    0*195 486  85    0*200 492  85    0
15400 09/02*174 446  70    0*180 460  70    0*185 475  75    0*189 488  75    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15405 09/03*206 498  90    0*212 504  90    0*219 510  95    0*227 517  95    0
15405 09/03*192 501  80    0*196 514  80    0*200 527  85    0*207 542  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15410 09/04*237 526 100    0*246 535 100    0*255 543 105    0*262 550 105    0
15410 09/04*215 556  90    0*226 570  90    0*240 580  90    0*250 584  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15415 09/05*268 557 105    0*275 564 105    0*282 570 105    0*290 576 100    0
15415 09/05*261 587  90    0*271 589  90    0*280 590  90    0*288 591  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15420 09/06*298 581  95    0*307 585  90    0*315 587  85    0*323 583  85    0
15420 09/06*295 592  90    0*301 591  90    0*307 590  85    0*316 586  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

15425 09/07*330 578  85    0*336 570  85    0*342 561  85    0*347 553  85    0
15425 09/07*326 578  85    0*336 570  85    0*342 561  85    0*347 553  85    0
            ***

15430 09/08*352 540  85    0*356 519  80    0*358 500  80    0*360 475  80    0
15430 09/08*352 540  85    0*356 520  80    0*358 500  80    0*360 475  80    0
                                 ***

15435 09/09*360 444  80    0*362 413  80    0*370 390  80    0*381 381  75    0
15435 09/09*360 444  80    0*362 413  80    0*370 390  80    0*381 374  75    0
                                                                   ***

15440 09/10*397 377  70    0*415 379  70    0E431 378  65    0E445 368  65    0
15440 09/10*395 357  70    0*410 338  70    0*430 320  65    0*444 309  65    0
            *** ***          *** ***         **** ***         **** ***  

15445 09/11E469 325  55    0E480 290  45    0E486 250  40    0E492 200  35    0
15445 09/11E458 293  55    0E473 277  45    0E486 250  40    0E492 200  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***

15450 HR         

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations
to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally
storm number 5.  These track and intensity changes are found to be
reasonable.  A 991 mb peripheral pressure on 12Z of the 8th supports 
winds of at least 62 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - winds 
maintained at 80 kt.  Peak winds are reduced from 105 kt down to 90 kt, since 
observations available support only a Category 1 hurricane, or Category 2 
hurricane at most.  Winds reduced from the 1st to the 6th accordingly.

********************************************************************************


15455 09/09/1901 M=11  6 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
15455 09/09/1901 M=11  8 SNBR= 384 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                       *       ***

15460 09/09*  0   0   0    0*188 493  35    0*186 504  35    0*184 518  35    0
15460 09/09*  0   0   0    0*176 507  35    0*175 520  35    0*175 532  35    0
                             *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

15465 09/10*184 532  35    0*183 546  35    0*183 560  35    0*182 574  35    0
15465 09/10*174 546  35    0*174 560  35    0*173 573  35    0*174 588  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

15470 09/11*182 587  35    0*181 600  40    0*182 614  40    0*183 630  40    0
15470 09/11*175 601  35    0*176 613  40    0*178 627  45    0*181 643  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15475 09/12*185 647  40    0*186 665  40    0*186 682  40    0*188 698  35    0
15475 09/12*184 656  50    0*185 669  50    0*186 682  50    0*187 696  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **               **      *** ***  **

15480 09/13*190 714  35    0*192 730  35    0*194 742  35    0*197 757  40    0
15480 09/13*188 710  35    0*189 726  35    0*190 743  45    0*191 757  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      ***      **

15485 09/14*199 770  40    0*201 783  45    0*204 796  45    0*208 809  50    0
15485 09/14*192 770  55    0*194 783  60    0*197 795  65    0*201 806  65    0
            ***      **      ***      **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15490 09/15*214 822  50    0*221 834  50    0*228 847  50    0*234 857  50    0
15490 09/15*205 819  70    0*210 833  70    0*215 845  70    0*220 856  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15495 09/16*240 864  50    0*245 869  50    0*251 875  50    0*257 880  50    0
15495 09/16*226 865  60    0*233 873  55    0*243 880  50    0*253 885  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  

15500 09/17*263 883  50    0*270 885  50    0*278 887  45    0*289 882  45    0
15500 09/17*265 885  50    0*277 881  50    0*290 875  50    0*303 867  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15505 09/18*302 873  40    0*316 850  35    0E330 812  35    0E342 770  35    0
15505 09/18*316 853  40    0*325 834  35    0*330 812  35    0*342 770  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **     *                *

15510 09/19E358 742  35    0E371 725  35    0E387 700  35    0E405 672  35    0
15510 09/19E358 742  40    0E371 725  45    0E387 700  50    0E405 672  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

15515 TS
15515 HR
      **

The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to upgrade the storm 
to a hurricane in the vicinity of Cuba. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made 
reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et 
al. (1999), originally storm number 6.  This upgrade to a hurricane is 
based upon the re-analysis work of Perez (2000), which analyzed the storm as 
a Category 1 hurricane in the vicinity of Cuba.  Winds are increased 
accordingly on the 13th to the 16th.  A peripheral pressure of 1001 mb (06Z 
on the 12th) suggests winds of at least 45 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 50 kt used in best track.  Winds adjusted accordingly on the 
11th and 12th.  The storm is known as "San Leoncio" or "San Vicente IV" for 
its impacts in Puerto Rico.

********************************************************************************

15520 09/12/1901 M= 6  7 SNBR= 365 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15520 09/12/1901 M= 6  9 SNBR= 385 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                       *       ***

15525 09/12*111 281  35    0*115 285  35    0*121 289  35    0*127 291  35    0
15530 09/13*133 294  35    0*138 295  35    0*143 296  35    0*148 296  35    0
15530 09/13*133 294  40    0*138 295  40    0*143 296  45    0*148 296  45    0
                     **               **               **               **

15535 09/14*153 296  35    0*158 294  40    0*162 292  40    0*166 291  40    0
15535 09/14*153 296  50    0*158 294  50    0*162 292  50    0*166 291  50    0
                     **               **               **               **

15540 09/15*170 290  40    0*174 290  35    0*178 292  35    0*181 294  35    0
15540 09/15*170 290  45    0*174 290  40    0*178 292  35    0*181 294  35    0
                     **               ** 

15545 09/16*184 298  35    0*186 302  35    0*189 307  35    0*191 309  35    0
15550 09/17*194 311  35    0*198 314  35    0*202 316  35    0*208 320  30    0
15555 TS

Partagas and Diaz (1997) introduced no changes to the track shown in 
Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 7.  However, ship reports
indicate that the storm was somewhat stronger than originally indicated
in HURDAT.  Winds increased on the 13th to the 15th accordingly.

********************************************************************************

15560 09/21/1901 M=12  8 SNBR= 366 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
15560 09/21/1901 M=12 10 SNBR= 386 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                       *       ***

15565 09/21*110 802  35    0*115 804  35    0*120 806  35    0*125 808  35    0
15565 09/21*137 730  35    0*138 740  35    0*140 750  35    0*142 759  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15570 09/22*130 810  35    0*135 813  35    0*140 815  35    0*146 817  35    0
15570 09/22*144 769  35    0*147 780  35    0*150 790  35    0*152 798  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15575 09/23*151 820  35    0*157 822  35    0*163 825  35    0*168 828  35    0
15575 09/23*155 806  35    0*159 813  35    0*165 820  35    0*169 823  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15580 09/24*173 831  35    0*178 834  35    0*183 837  35    0*189 840  35    0
15580 09/24*174 825  35    0*180 828  35    0*185 830  35    0*188 832  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15585 09/25*194 843  35    0*201 846  35    0*207 849  40    0*213 852  40    0
15585 09/25*192 833  35    0*196 834  35    0*200 835  40    0*203 837  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15590 09/26*220 853  40    0*228 854  45    0*238 855  45    0*250 855  45    0
15590 09/26*207 838  40    0*211 839  45    0*215 840  45    0*221 842  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15595 09/27*263 853  40    0*275 851  40    0*288 848  40    0*300 843  40    0
15595 09/27*232 845  40    0*243 848  40    0*255 850  40    0*270 849  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15600 09/28*312 839  40    0*325 835  40    0E337 830  35    0E354 823  35    0
15600 09/28*288 847  40    0*306 845  35    0E325 840  35    0E351 827  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

15605 09/29E378 814  30    0E403 801  25    0E425 786  25    0E442 765  25    0
15610 09/30E457 745  25    0E470 725  25    0E480 674  25    0E482 639  30    0
15610 09/30E457 745  25    0E470 725  25    0E480 685  25    0E482 639  30    0
                                                  ***

15615 10/01E482 601  30    0E483 559  35    0E485 515  35    0E490 461  40    0
15620 10/02E508 394  40    0E531 326  45    0E553 270  45    0*  0   0   0    0
15625 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 8.  These
track changes are found to be reasonable.  Track adjusted slightly on the 
30th to allow for a more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************


15630 10/07/1901 M= 8  9 SNBR= 367 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15630 10/05/1901 M=10 11 SNBR= 387 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **        ** **       ***

(The 5th and 6th are new to HURDAT.)
15632 10/05*120 515  35    0*122 517  35    0*125 520  35    0*127 523  35    0
15634 10/06*130 526  40    0*132 529  40    0*135 533  40    0*138 537  45    0

15635 10/07*147 508  35    0*148 520  35    0*150 531  35    0*151 542  35    0
15635 10/07*142 541  50    0*146 545  55    0*150 550  60    0*155 556  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15640 10/08*153 554  35    0*155 567  35    0*158 581  35    0*161 597  35    0
15640 10/08*162 567  60    0*169 576  60    0*175 585  55    0*184 596  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15645 10/09*165 615  35    0*172 634  35    0*178 650  35    0*185 662  35    0
15645 10/09*194 606  45    0*202 614  40    0*210 623  35    0*218 637  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  

15650 10/10*193 675  35    0*204 689  35    0*220 700  35    0*240 702  35    0
15650 10/10*227 655  35    0*240 670  35    0*256 685  35    0*277 690  35    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

15655 10/11*261 689  40    0*281 670  40    0*302 651  45    0*323 638  45    0
15655 10/11E303 685  40    0E330 672  40    0E350 650  45    0E358 638  45    0
           **** ***         **** ***         **** ***         **** 

15660 10/12*346 625  45    0*366 613  40    0E381 600  35    0E392 587  35    0
15660 10/12E365 625  45    0E373 613  40    0E381 600  35    0E392 587  35    0
           ****             ****

15665 10/13E402 570  35    0E411 556  35    0E420 541  35    0E430 516  35    0
15670 10/14E439 484  35    0E449 444  35    0E458 400  35    0*  0   0   0    0
15675 TS

The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to provide a more 
realistic position on the 5th.  The Partagas and Diaz position on the 5th 
required a motion toward the northeast, which is not supported by climatology 
or available ship observations.  Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large
though reasonable alterations to the track and intensity from that shown in 
Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9.  Winds increased from the 
7th to the 9th based upon ship reports in Partagas and Diaz.

********************************************************************************

15676 10/15/1901 M= 4 11 SNBR= 388 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15676 10/15/1901 M= 4 12 SNBR= 388 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0

15677 10/15*210 800  30    0*215 793  30    0*220 785  30    0*225 777  35    0
15678 10/16*229 767  40    0*233 758  45    0*237 750  50    0*243 737  50    0
15679 10/17*252 724  50    0*258 711  50    0*265 695  45    0*269 684  40    0
15679 10/18*273 672  40    0E276 661  40    0E280 650  40    0E284 637  40    0
15679 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented
tropical storm.

********************************************************************************

15680 10/31/1901 M= 7 10 SNBR= 368 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15680 10/30/1901 M= 8 13 SNBR= 389 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **         * **       ***

(The 30th is new to HURDAT.)
15682 10/30*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*193 673  30    0*205 672  30    0

15685 10/31*  0   0   0    0*217 688  35    0*225 680  35    0*235 672  35    0
15685 10/31*217 671  35    0*229 669  35    0*240 667  35    0*247 664  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

15690 11/01*243 665  35    0*251 659  35    0*258 653  40    0*263 648  40    0
15690 11/01*254 661  40    0*261 657  45    0*267 653  50    0*274 649  55    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15695 11/02*268 644  45    0*273 639  45    0*278 634  45    0*284 628  50    0
15695 11/02*280 646  55    0*286 642  60    0*293 635  60    0*296 628  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      ***      **

15700 11/03*290 622  50    0*297 616  50    0*305 610  50    0*313 604  50    0
15700 11/03*300 620  70    0*305 611  70    0*312 603  70    0*324 591  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15705 11/04*322 599  50    0*331 594  50    0*340 590  50    0*351 585  50    0
15705 11/04*340 581  65    0*356 571  60    0*368 563  55    0*374 557  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

15710 11/05*364 578  50    0*374 565  50    0*378 550  45    0*380 538  45    0
15710 11/05*379 555  50    0*383 550  50    0*385 545  45    0*383 534  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

15715 11/06*381 525  40    0*381 512  40    0*381 500  35    0*383 485  30    0
15715 11/06E378 525  40    0E373 515  40    0E370 505  35    0E370 492  30    0
           ****             **** ***         **** ***         **** ***  

15720 TS
15720 HR
      **

The major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to upgrade the storm to a 
hurricane.  A peripheral pressure of 989 mb (12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds 
of at least 65 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
chosen for the best track.  Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable 
small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), 
originally storm number 10.  A peripheral pressure of 1001 mb (12Z on
the 1st) suggests winds of at least 45 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for the best track.  Winds changed 
accordingly from the 1st to the 4th based upon these measurements.

*******************************************************************************

1901 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned one additional system considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out 
of HURDAT for the following reason:

1) October 5, 1901:  One gale force report, insufficient to determine if
   system was tropical storm intensity.




October 4-11:       Historical Weather Maps indicate a closed low at 10N, 
19W with a pressure of at most 1010mb on October 4. On the 5th, the system 
moved west-northwestward and Historical Weather Maps indicated a gale near 
the storm of 35kt SSE. However, this was the only gale found that was 
related to this system. From the 6th to the 11th, Historical Weather Maps 
does not show this system as a closed low anymore. COADS and Monthly Weather 
Review did not report any gales for this system. 

DAY 		LAT 	 LONG		STATUS
Oct 4		10N	 19W		 Tropical Depression
Oct 5		15N	 29W		 Tropical Storm?
Oct 6		23N	 25-40W		?



*******************************************************************************

15725 06/10/1902 M= 7  1 SNBR= 369 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
15725 06/12/1902 M= 6  1 SNBR= 390 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **         *          ***

15730 06/10*  0   0   0    0*134 817  35    0*138 819  35    0*141 821  35    0
15735 06/11*144 823  35    0*150 826  35    0*158 828  35    0*168 831  35    0
(The 10th and 11th are removed from HURDAT.)

15740 06/12*178 834  35    0*189 837  35    0*201 840  35    0*213 843  35    0
15740 06/12*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*177 840  30    0*191 836  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15745 06/13*226 845  35    0*238 847  40    0*250 848  40    0*262 848  45    0
15745 06/13*207 833  35    0*222 831  40    0*238 830  45    0*249 832  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15750 06/14*275 847  45    0*287 845  45    0*299 841  40    0*306 838  30    0
15750 06/14*259 835  50    0*269 838  50    0*280 840  50    0*290 839  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15755 06/15*312 835  25    0*320 832  25    0*331 825  25    0*336 821  25    0
15755 06/15*300 836  45    0*310 832  40    0*320 825  35    0*330 817  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15760 06/16E344 814  25    0E352 807  25    0E360 798  25    0E370 780  25    0
15760 06/16*340 807  35    0*352 795  35    0E367 780  40    0E386 749  40    0
           **** ***  **     *    ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(The 17th is new to HURDAT.)
15762 06/17E419 715  35    0E450 682  35    0E475 660  30    0E494 640  30    0

15765 TS 

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable.  Winds increased slightly from 
the 13th to the 16th based upon ship and coastal observations.

********************************************************************************


15770 06/19/1902 M=10  2 SNBR= 370 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
15770 06/21/1902 M= 9  2 SNBR= 391 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
         **        **          ***                        

15775 06/19*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*170 850  35    0*173 858  35    0
15780 06/20*175 866  40    0*177 873  40    0*181 880  40    0*183 885  35    0
(The 19th and 20th are removed from HURDAT.)

15785 06/21*185 890  35    0*187 895  35    0*189 899  35    0*192 907  35    0
15785 06/21*172 921  25    0*176 924  25    0*180 927  25    0*182 929  25    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15790 06/22*195 915  35    0*197 922  35    0*199 928  40    0*202 932  40    0
15790 06/22*184 930  30    0*187 932  30    0*190 935  30    0*192 937  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15795 06/23*205 935  45    0*208 938  45    0*211 942  50    0*215 946  50    0
15795 06/23*195 939  30    0*197 941  30    0*200 943  30    0*203 945  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15800 06/24*219 950  55    0*223 954  60    0*228 958  65    0*233 961  70    0
15800 06/24*205 946  30    0*207 948  30    0*210 950  35    0*215 953  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15805 06/25*238 964  70    0*243 966  70    0*248 968  70    0*253 969  70    0
15805 06/25*221 956  45    0*227 960  50    0*233 963  55    0*239 966  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15810 06/26*258 970  70    0*264 970  70    0*270 970  75    0*278 970  80    0
15810 06/26*247 968  65    0*255 969  70    0*264 970  65    0*272 971  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          ***      **      *** ***  **

15815 06/27*288 969  65    0*299 967  50    0*310 965  40    0*321 962  30    0
15815 06/27*281 972  50    0*290 973  45    0*300 974  40    0*315 972  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  **

15820 06/28*332 959  30    0*343 954  25    0E354 949  25    0*  0   0   0    0
15820 06/28*328 966  35    0*342 959  35    0E358 945  35    0E376 923  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

(The 29th was not in HURDAT previously.)
15822 06/29E395 886  35    0E406 854  35    0E415 820  35    0E418 786  35    0

15825 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable.  Despite HURDAT having 80 kt at 
landfall originally and Neumann et al. (1999) showing hurricane intensity in 
the track plot up to landfall in Texas, this storm was not listed in Neumann 
et al.'s Table 6 or HURDAT's U.S. hurricane characterization as a U.S. 
landfalling hurricane.  More significantly, Connor (1956) specifically 
listed this system as being "not hurricane intensity" at landfall in Texas.  
For the re-analysis here, it was decided to reduce the hurricane to just 
below hurricane force before landfall in Texas based upon Connor's 
assessment, but still maintaining a peak intensity of 70 kt while over the 
open Gulf of Mexico.  A peripheral pressure of 995 mb (on the 26th) suggests 
winds of at least 54 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship at 
landfall - 60 kt chosen for best track, which is a reduction from 80 kt 
previously in HURDAT.

********************************************************************************

15830 09/16/1902 M=10  3 SNBR= 371 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15830 09/16/1902 M=10  3 SNBR= 392 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

15835 09/16*  0   0   0    0* 82 330  35    0* 85 336  35    0* 90 342  35    0
15835 09/16*  0   0   0    0* 77 308  35    0* 80 320  35    0* 85 332  35    0
                              ** ***           ** ***           ** *** 

15840 09/17* 95 350  35    0* 99 360  35    0*104 375  35    0*110 394  35    0
15840 09/17* 92 345  35    0* 98 360  35    0*104 375  35    0*109 389  35    0
             ** ***           **                               *** ***

15845 09/18*116 411  40    0*123 430  40    0*129 448  40    0*134 464  45    0
15845 09/18*114 403  40    0*119 417  40    0*123 430  40    0*126 444  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15850 09/19*139 480  50    0*146 498  50    0*153 514  55    0*167 523  60    0
15850 09/19*131 461  50    0*136 477  50    0*143 493  55    0*153 509  60    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15855 09/20*180 528  65    0*194 530  70    0*210 530  75    0*229 526  80    0
15855 09/20*168 523  65    0*189 530  70    0*210 530  75    0*229 526  80    0
            *** ***          ***  

15860 09/21*250 515  85    0*271 502  85    0*290 490  85    0*305 480  85    0
15860 09/21*247 517  85    0*265 505  85    0*283 495  85    0*302 484  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15865 09/22*322 469  80    0*336 460  75    0E348 448  75    0E359 422  70    0
15865 09/22*321 473  80    0*336 460  75    0E348 448  75    0E358 429  70    0
            *** ***                                            *** ***

15870 09/23E369 401  65    0E379 381  65    0E389 361  60    0E399 349  55    0
15870 09/23E368 414  65    0E378 399  65    0E387 385  60    0E395 371  55    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15875 09/24E407 341  55    0E416 332  50    0E426 323  50    0E439 314  45    0
15875 09/24E404 358  55    0E413 345  50    0E423 331  50    0E440 317  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

15880 09/25E456 303  45    0E476 296  45    0E498 288  40    0E516 292  40    0
15880 09/25E457 304  45    0E476 296  45    0E498 288  40    0E516 292  40    0
            *** ***   

15885 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A 
peripheral pressure of 981 mb (12Z on the 21st) suggests winds of at least 
74 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in 
best track.

********************************************************************************

15890 10/03/1902 M=11  4 SNBR= 372 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
15890 10/03/1902 M=11  4 SNBR= 393 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=0
                               *** 

15895 10/03*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*140 930  50    0*150 930  50    0
15895 10/03*140 938  30    0*145 940  30    0*150 942  30    0*155 943  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  ** 

15900 10/04*159 930  50    0*167 929  45    0*172 929  40    0*176 928  40    0
15900 10/04*160 944  30    0*165 945  30    0*170 946  30    0*175 947  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  ** 

15905 10/05*179 927  40    0*182 927  45    0*184 926  50    0*186 926  55    0
15905 10/05*180 948  30    0*185 949  30    0*187 949  35    0*188 947  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15910 10/06*188 926  60    0*189 925  60    0*191 925  65    0*193 925  70    0
15910 10/06*189 944  55    0*191 940  60    0*193 937  65    0*195 933  75    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

15915 10/07*195 924  70    0*198 923  75    0*201 924  75    0*205 923  80    0
15915 10/07*197 929  85    0*200 925  90  970*203 920  90    0*207 915  90    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15920 10/08*211 922  80    0*219 921  85    0*228 920  85    0*235 918  85    0
15920 10/08*211 911  90    0*215 908  90    0*220 905  90    0*227 902  90    0
                ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15925 10/09*243 916  85    0*251 913  85    0*260 909  80    0*269 906  70    0
15925 10/09*234 900  90    0*239 899  85    0*245 897  80    0*253 895  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

15930 10/10*277 903  65    0*285 898  60    0*294 892  60    0*303 883  50    0
15930 10/10*262 891  65    0*271 888  60    0*280 885  55    0*294 878  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** *** 

15935 10/11E314 874  40    0E325 863  35    0E337 848  35    0E349 828  35    0
15935 10/11*310 869  40    0E325 859  35    0E337 848  35    0E349 828  35    0
           **** ***              ***

15940 10/12E366 799  35    0E376 780  35    0E388 728  35    0E399 691  35    0
15940 10/12E364 805  35    0E376 780  35    0E388 728  35    0E399 691  35    0
            *** *** 

15945 10/13E409 655  35    0E419 610  40    0E428 551  40    0*  0   0   0    0
15950 HR    

One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who otherwise made large,
but reasonable alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et 
al. (1999).  The formation of the system in the Gulf of Tehuantepec as
found in Neumann et al. has been retained, though slightly altered in
track based upon observations collected by Partagas and Diaz.  Trek across
the Mexico likely to be at tropical depression intensity.  A central 
pressure of 970 mb (at 09Z on the 7th) suggests winds of 89 kt from the 
Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt utilized in best track.  
Winds are adjusted according on the 6th through the 9th.  Slight alteration 
in track on the 12th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity.

********************************************************************************

15955 11/01/1902 M= 6  5 SNBR= 373 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15955 11/01/1902 M= 6  5 SNBR= 394 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

15960 11/01*  0   0   0    0*221 621  35    0*231 630  35    0*242 638  35    0
15960 11/01*200 673  30    0*210 683  30    0*225 673  35    0*246 663  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** *** 

15965 11/02*253 640  35    0*266 642  35    0*279 642  40    0*295 637  40    0
15965 11/02*266 653  35    0*287 639  40    0*305 626  45    0*318 613  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15970 11/03*311 625  40    0*327 611  40    0*342 590  45    0*352 575  45    0
15970 11/03*327 603  55    0*335 592  60    0*343 580  60    0*348 572  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

15975 11/04*362 560  45    0*372 543  45    0*377 530  50    0*381 520  50    0
15975 11/04*352 565  60    0*357 557  55    0*360 550  50    0*363 538  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  

15980 11/05*385 510  50    0*388 500  50    0*390 490  50    0*392 480  40    0
15980 11/05*366 528  50    0*368 519  50    0*370 510  50    0*371 498  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

15985 11/06*394 470  35    0*396 460  30    0*397 450  25    0*398 439  20    0
15985 11/06*371 486  35    0*370 474  30    0*370 465  25    0*371 454  20    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

15990 TS  

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A 
peripheral pressure of 993 mb (at 12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least 
59 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best 
track.  (A slightly higher wind speed could have been chosen, but given the 
time of year - early November - with cooler SSTs prevailing a more 
conservative value is chosen.)  Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 2nd 
through the 4th.

*******************************************************************************

1902 - Additional Notes:

Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned one additional system considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out 
of HURDAT for the following reason:

1) August 25-28, 1902:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.

********************************************************************************


15995 07/19/1903 M= 8  1 SNBR= 374 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
15995 07/21/1903 M= 6  1 SNBR= 395 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **         *          ***

16000 07/19*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*165 618  35    0*172 639  35    0
16005 07/20*179 656  35    0*185 668  35    0*193 683  35    0*200 697  40    0
(The 19th and 20th are omitted from the new HURDAT.)

16010 07/21*209 710  45    0*216 720  55    0*225 732  60    0*236 742  60    0
16010 07/21*200 678  35    0*207 689  35    0*215 700  35    0*225 712  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16015 07/22*248 748  60    0*261 750  70    0*273 750  80    0*284 747  85    0
16015 07/22*237 726  35    0*249 738  35    0*265 750  40    0*276 755  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16020 07/23*295 742  90    0*305 737  90    0*316 730  90    0*324 723  90    0
16020 07/23*288 756  45    0*299 754  50    0*310 750  55    0*322 736  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16025 07/24*332 716  90    0*340 705  90    0*347 696  85    0*353 685  85    0
16025 07/24*334 716  65    0*343 701  70    0*353 685  70    0*364 669  70    0
            ***      **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16030 07/25*358 672  80    0*364 656  75    0*370 638  70    0*378 605  70    0
16030 07/25*373 652  70    0*379 636  65    0*385 615  60    0*393 580  55    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16035 07/26*388 570  60    0*398 535  50    0E410 503  45    0E425 466  40    0
16035 07/26*399 547  50    0E405 514  50    0E410 485  45    0E414 457  40    0
            *** ***  **     **** ***              ***          *** *** 

16040 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable.  Partagas and Diaz'
analysis documented that this hurricane reached, at best, a Category 1
hurricane status.  Thus peak winds are reduced from 90 kt to 70 kt
and winds are adjusted downward accordingly for the lifetime of this
system.

********************************************************************************

16045 08/06/1903 M=11  2 SNBR= 375 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
16045 08/06/1903 M=11  2 SNBR= 396 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

16050 08/06*  0   0   0    0*125 432  50    0*125 450  50    0*127 470  50    0
16050 08/06*  0   0   0    0*118 423  50    0*120 435  50    0*123 447  50    0
                             *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

16055 08/07*130 488  55    0*132 505  65    0*134 520  70    0*136 533  70    0
16055 08/07*126 460  55    0*131 475  65    0*135 490  70    0*137 509  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

16060 08/08*138 544  70    0*139 556  70    0*141 569  70    0*143 583  75    0
16060 08/08*138 526  70    0*138 541  70    0*140 560  70    0*143 578  75    0
                ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

16065 08/09*144 598  75    0*145 614  80    0*147 630  80    0*149 647  80    0
16065 08/09*144 598  80    0*145 614  90  970*147 630 100    0*149 647 105    0
                     **               **  ***         ***              ***

16070 08/10*152 664  85    0*156 682  85    0*160 700  90    0*165 720  90    0
16070 08/10*152 664 105    0*156 682 105    0*160 700 105    0*166 720 105    0
                    ***              ***              ***              ***

16075 08/11*170 741  90    0*176 762  95    0*182 780 100    0*189 796 105    0
16075 08/11*172 738 105    0*177 756 105    0*183 773 105    0*186 787 105    0
            *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** ***      *** *** 

16080 08/12*193 810 105    0*197 823 105    0*200 836 105    0*203 849 100    0
16080 08/12*190 800 105    0*194 811 105  958*197 825 105    0*201 840 105    0
            *** ***          *** ***      *** *** ***          *** *** ***

16085 08/13*206 861  95    0*208 873  90    0*210 884  90    0*211 892  85    0
16085 08/13*204 856 105    0*208 873  85    0*210 884  70    0*212 894  65    0
            *** *** ***               **               **      *** ***  **

16090 08/14*212 900  85    0*213 909  85    0*215 914  85    0*217 923  85    0
16090 08/14*214 904  70    0*217 914  70    0*220 925  70    0*221 934  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16095 08/15*220 930  85    0*224 940  85    0*228 950  85    0*230 960  80    0
16095 08/15*223 943  70    0*226 951  70  986*230 960  70    0*231 968  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **  *** *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16100 08/16*232 968  75    0*234 975  50    0*234 986  40    0*232 996  35    0
16100 08/16*230 976  70    0*228 983  50    0*225 990  40    0*220 996  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** 

16105 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  
A central pressure of 970 mb (0430Z on the 9th) suggests winds of 89 kt from 
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt utilized in best track, up
from 80 kt previously.  A peripheral pressure of 975 mb (0930Z on the
11th) suggests winds of at least 84 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship and a wind measurement of 105 kt was observed - 105 kt used in
the best track, up from 100 kt previously.  A central pressure of 958 mb 
(05Z on the 12th) suggests winds of 102 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship and a wind measurement of 100 kt was observed - 105 kt retained 
in best track.  A central pressure of 986 mb (03Z on the 15th) suggests
winds of 68 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
used in best track, down from 85 kt.  Winds adjusted accordingly from the
9th to the 16th.  Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized 
for inland winds over the Yucatan of Mexico.  Full lifecycle of this 
hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage.

********************************************************************************

16110 09/09/1903 M= 8  3 SNBR= 376 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=2
16110 09/09/1903 M= 8  3 SNBR= 397 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***                        *   

16115 09/09*  0   0   0    0*214 724  50    0*218 734  50    0*222 740  50    0
16120 09/10*226 747  55    0*232 753  60    0*238 760  65    0*240 765  70    0
16120 09/10*226 747  55    0*232 753  60    0*238 760  65    0*245 767  70    0
                                                               *** ***

16125 09/11*244 769  80    0*249 775  85    0*254 784  85    0*258 791  85    0
16125 09/11*251 775  75    0*255 782  75    0*257 789  75    0*259 796  75  976 
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **  ***

16130 09/12*264 803  75    0*269 812  65    0*273 821  60  988*278 829  50    0
16130 09/12*262 803  70    0*267 812  60    0*273 821  55  988*277 829  50    0
            ***      **      ***      **               **      ***

16135 09/13*281 836  55    0*285 842  60    0*289 848  65    0*295 853  70    0
16135 09/13*281 836  60    0*285 842  70    0*289 848  80    0*295 853  80    0
                     **               **               **               **

16140 09/14*303 857  65    0*310 859  55    0*316 860  35    0*320 860  35    0
16140 09/14*303 857  80    0*310 859  60    0*316 860  45    0*320 860  35    0
                     **               **               **

16145 09/15*324 859  35    0*327 856  35    0*330 853  35    0*333 849  35    0
16150 09/16*336 843  35    0*338 837  35    0*340 830  35    0*339 823  30    0
16150 09/16*336 843  30    0*338 837  30    0*340 830  30    0*339 823  30    0
                     **               **               ** 

16155 HRCFL2AFL1
16155 HRCFL1AFL1
        ****

Two major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) where made to the track of
this hurricane.  The first alteration is to bring the center of the system 
to just west of Nassau near 00 UTC on the 10th, based upon wind and pressure 
observations.  The second major alteration is to utilize the Ho 
et al. (1987) landfall position for Southeast Florida, which does better 
match the possible central position from Cat Cay.  Partagas and Diaz 
otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity 
shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A central pressure of 976 mb (11th) suggests 
winds of 80 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship.  However, Ho 
et al. estimate a large (43 nmi) RMW, so that winds are chosen to be 75 kt 
which matches the observed winds in Jupiter, Florida - this is a moderate 
reduction from the original HURDAT.  Ho et al.'s estimate of 977 mb at 
landfall in Southeast Florida was based upon a peripheral pressure of 996 mb 
from Tampa.  This is consistent with the measured 976 mb central pressure 
from Cat Cay, Bahamas.  The 75 kt at landfall in Southeast Florida makes this 
hurricane a Category 1, which is downgraded from the estimate of Category 2 
in Neumann et al.'s (1999) Table 6/U.S. hurricane characterization in 
HURDAT.  A storm tide of 8' was recorded at Jupiter, Florida (Barnes 1998a).

A peripheral pressure of 985 mb (at 22Z on the 13th) suggests winds of at 
least 70 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship.  A storm tide 
value of 10' was recorded at Apalachicola, Florida (Barnes 1998a).  Winds
at landfall are estimated at 80 kt based upon these observations, which is 
increased slightly from the 70 kt originally in HURDAT.  The 80 kt at landfall 
in the panhandle of Florida retains the Category 1 in Neumann et al.'s 
assessment.  Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 13th and 14th.

Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information 
about its genesis stage.

1903/03 - 2011 REVISION:

17050 09/09/1903 M= 8  3 SNBR= 397 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1                     
17055 09/09*  0   0   0    0*214 724  50    0*218 734  50    0*222 740  50    0*
17060 09/10*226 747  55    0*232 753  60    0*238 760  65    0*245 767  70    0*
17065 09/11*251 775  75    0*255 782  75    0*257 789  75    0*259 796  75  976*
17070 09/12*262 803  70    0*267 812  60    0*273 821  55  988*277 829  50    0*
17075 09/13*281 836  60    0*285 842  70    0*289 848  80    0*295 853  80    0*
17080 09/14*303 857  80    0*310 859  60    0*316 860  45    0*320 860  35    0*
17085 09/15*324 859  35    0*327 856  35    0*330 853  35    0*333 849  35    0*
17090 09/16*336 843  30    0*338 837  30    0*340 830  30    0*339 823  30    0*
17095 HRCFL1AFL1                                                                

U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date         Time  Lat    Lon    Max  Saffir RMW   Central   States
                                   Wind Simpson      Pressure  Affected
3-9/11/1903    2300Z 26.1N  80.1W   75kt  1   43nmi   976mb    CFL1
3-9/14/1903    0000Z 30.1N  85.6W   80kt  1    ---   (977mb)   AFL1
3-9/14/1903    0000Z 30.1N  85.6W   80kt  1    ---   (974mb)   AFL1
                                                      ***

The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in northwest Florida as an 80 kt hurricane.  This suggested a central 
pressure at landfall of 977 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind 
relationship.   The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for 
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 974 mb - 
for an 80 kt hurricane.  This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall 
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing.  This is not 
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is 
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.

********************************************************************************

16160 09/12/1903 M= 6  4 SNBR= 377 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
16160 09/12/1903 M= 6  4 SNBR= 398 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***

16165 09/12*225 556  60    0*233 564  60    0*242 573  70    0*251 583  70    0
16165 09/12*225 556  60    0*233 564  60    0*242 573  60    0*254 587  60    0
                                                       **      *** ***  **

16170 09/13*260 594  70    0*268 607  70    0*275 620  70    0*281 636  70    0
16170 09/13*265 604  60    0*274 622  60    0*280 640  60    0*284 652  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16175 09/14*286 654  70    0*292 672  70    0*297 686  70    0*303 696  70    0
16175 09/14*288 665  60    0*291 678  60    0*295 690  60    0*301 703  65    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16180 09/15*309 704  70    0*315 712  75    0*321 718  80    0*331 723  85    0
16180 09/15*308 715  70    0*316 726  75    0*325 733  80    0*341 740  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  

16185 09/16*346 728  85    0*364 733  80    0*384 739  70    0*400 747  65    0
16185 09/16*362 745  80    0*380 746  75    0*393 747  70  990*403 750  55    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***      *** *** ***  **

16190 09/17*410 756  55    0*419 764  45    0E430 772  40    0E448 770  30    0
16190 09/17*411 755  55    0*419 763  45    0E430 770  40    0E448 770  30    0
            *** ***              ***              ***

16195 HR NJ1 NY1 CT1
16195 HR NJ1 DE1 
             *** ***

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  A 
peripheral pressure of 997 mb (15Z on the 16th) suggests winds of at least 
53 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best 
track which is the same as the original HURDAT.  990 mb was analyzed as the 
central pressure at landfall in Jarrell et al. (1992), which suggests winds 
of 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship.  Intensity at landfall 
is retained as a Category 1 at New Jersey (70 kt) - which agrees with Table 6 
in Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT.  A ship 
report of hurricane force winds at the Delaware Capes (from Roth and Cobb 
2001) suggests that the Delaware coast also experienced Category 1 
conditions.  However, observations collected by Partagas and Diaz indicate 
that New York and Connecticut were not likely affected by sustained 
hurricane winds so that they are removed from being listed as a Category 1 
at landfall.  Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of 
information about its genesis stage.

********************************************************************************


16200 09/20/1903 M= 7  5 SNBR= 378 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
16200 09/19/1903 M= 8  5 SNBR= 399 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **         *          ***

(The 19th is new to HURDAT.)
16202 09/19*208 716  30    0*213 717  30    0*217 717  30    0*220 717  30    0

16205 09/20*219 716  35    0*225 714  35    0*230 712  35    0*234 713  35    0
16205 09/20*223 717  30    0*226 717  30    0*230 717  30    0*235 718  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16210 09/21*239 714  35    0*243 716  35    0*247 718  40    0*251 720  40    0
16210 09/21*241 720  30    0*246 722  30    0*250 725  30    0*255 727  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16215 09/22*254 722  45    0*258 724  45    0*262 726  45    0*267 728  45    0
16215 09/22*260 729  30    0*265 731  30    0*270 733  35    0*275 735  35    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16220 09/23*272 729  45    0*278 729  45    0*284 729  45    0*290 729  45    0
16220 09/23*279 736  40    0*285 736  40    0*290 737  45    0*300 739  45    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** *** 

16225 09/24*297 727  50    0*303 724  50    0*310 720  50    0*318 713  50    0
16225 09/24*314 740  50    0*328 738  50    0*340 730  50    0*347 716  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** *** 

16230 09/25*328 703  50    0*339 691  45    0*347 675  45    0*351 659  40    0
16230 09/25*351 704  50    0*354 690  45    0*355 675  45    0*360 653  40    0
            *** ***          *** ***          ***              *** *** 

16235 09/26*358 637  35    0*360 611  30    0*366 582  25    0*  0   0   0    0
16235 09/26*367 627  35    0*373 601  30    0*378 575  25    0*382 556  25    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **

16240 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable.  A peripheral pressure of 
1003 mb (12Z on the 24th) suggests winds of at least 43 kt from the 
subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt retained in HURDAT.
A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (12Z on the 25th) suggests winds of
at least 42 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 45 kt
retained in HURDAT.

********************************************************************************

16245 09/26/1903 M= 5  6 SNBR= 379 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
16245 09/26/1903 M= 5  6 SNBR= 400 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

16250 09/26*  0   0   0    0*229 588  40    0*233 600  40    0*236 616  40    0
16255 09/27*239 628  45    0*243 638  50    0*248 646  50    0*261 653  55    0
16255 09/27*239 628  45    0*243 638  50    0*248 646  55    0*260 653  60    0
                                                       **      ***      **

16260 09/28*274 654  60    0*288 652  65    0*302 647  70    0*316 637  75    0
16260 09/28*273 657  70    0*287 657  80    0*300 655  90    0*321 642  95    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16265 09/29*331 624  80    0*346 606  85    0*362 576  85    0*379 530  85    0
16265 09/29*341 623  95    0*360 591  95    0*375 563  90    0*394 528  85    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  

16270 09/30*388 500  80    0E406 462  75    0E435 410  70    0*  0   0   0    0
16270 09/30*412 486  80    0E427 448  75    0E445 405  70    0E465 355  60    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***         **** ***  **

16275 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  
A peripheral pressure of 988 mb (16Z on the 28th) suggests winds of 
at least 66 kt - 95 kt is chosen for the best track which is appropriate
given hurricane force winds were observed in Bermuda on the weak side of 
the storm.  

********************************************************************************

16280 10/01/1903 M=10  7 SNBR= 380 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
16280 10/01/1903 M=10  7 SNBR= 401 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

16285 10/01*202 575  60    0*204 588  60    0*208 600  65    0*214 612  70    0
16285 10/01*170 560  60    0*177 573  60    0*185 585  60    0*194 597  60    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16290 10/02*221 620  70    0*229 628  70    0*237 634  70    0*247 636  70    0
16290 10/02*203 610  65    0*215 622  70    0*230 635  70    0*243 638  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

16295 10/03*259 633  70    0*271 629  70    0*281 622  75    0*290 612  75    0
16295 10/03*254 637  70    0*263 634  70    0*273 630  75    0*280 627  75    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

16300 10/04*297 603  80    0*301 593  80    0*301 580  85    0*299 566  85    0
16300 10/04*289 622  80    0*295 616  80    0*300 607  85    0*305 591  85    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

16305 10/05*296 552  85    0*293 538  85    0*289 525  85    0*286 510  80    0
16305 10/05*306 572  85    0*304 552  85    0*300 534  85    0*295 519  80    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

16310 10/06*284 497  75    0*282 484  70    0*279 471  70    0*273 470  70    0
16310 10/06*289 502  75    0*281 488  70    0*270 480  70    0*268 482  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

16315 10/07*268 478  70    0*269 488  70    0*272 493  70    0*279 489  70    0
16315 10/07*267 484  70    0*268 487  70    0*270 490  70    0*276 488  70    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

16320 10/08*281 482  70    0*282 472  70    0*283 465  70    0*284 450  65    0
16320 10/08*280 482  70    0*282 472  70    0*283 462  70    0*285 450  65    0
            ***                                   ***          ***

16325 10/09*285 434  65    0*286 419  60    0*288 404  50    0*293 390  45    0
16325 10/09*290 431  65    0*295 415  60    0*300 400  50    0*305 387  45    0
            *** ***          *** ***          *** ***          *** ***

16330 10/10E301 375  40    0E312 362  35    0E324 350  35    0*  0   0   0    0
16330 10/10E309 375  40    0E316 362  35    0E324 350  35    0E336 332  35    0
            ***              ***                              **** ***  **
16335 HR

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  
Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information 
about its genesis stage.

********************************************************************************

16340 10/05/1903 M= 6  8 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
16340 10/05/1903 M= 6  8 SNBR= 402 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                               ***

16345 10/05*240 688  40    0*244 691  45    0*250 695  50    0*257 695  55    0
16345 10/05*255 725  35    0*257 723  35    0*260 720  40    0*263 717  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16350 10/06*263 694  55    0*268 692  60    0*272 690  65    0*275 688  70    0
16350 10/06*266 713  40    0*269 709  40    0*272 705  40    0*275 701  40    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **          ***  **          ***  **

16355 10/07*278 685  70    0*280 683  70    0*283 680  70    0*286 676  70    0
16355 10/07*278 697  40    0*281 693  40    0*285 688  40    0*290 682  45    0
                ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  ** 

16360 10/08*289 671  70    0*292 666  70    0*297 661  75    0*300 660  75    0
16360 10/08*295 674  50    0*300 669  55    0*305 665  60    0*311 662  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16365 10/09*304 660  80    0*309 662  85    0*313 668  85    0*316 677  85    0
16365 10/09*317 659  60    0*323 657  60    0*330 655  60    0*337 653  60    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16370 10/10*319 691  85    0*322 709  75    0*330 730  70    0E344 737  70    0
16370 10/10*345 652  55    0*353 651  50    0E361 650  50    0E372 648  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **     **** ***  **     **** ***  **

16375 HR     
16375 TS
      **

Major changes were made to this system from that proposed by Partagas and 
Diaz (1997).  Portions of track that they proposed are not reasonable.
After re-examination of available observations for this system from
the Historical Weather Map series, new track positions are proposed for 
the 5th through the 8th, which are different from both Neumann et al. 
(1999) as well as Partagas and Diaz.  These position are only moderately
altered from those seen in Neumann et al.  (Partagas and Diaz' apparent
error was in focusing upon a possible position based on one ship [at 23N,
75W] on the 6th.  However, space-time continuity with data on the 7th and 
8th was not consistent with what they believed occurred on the 6th.)  
Positions for the 9th and 10th proposed by Partagas and Diaz are large 
alterations to what appears in Neumann et al., but do look quite 
reasonable and are retained as suggested.  (On the 9th, a strong front 
entered the Atlantic from the U.S. east coast accompanied by an 
extratropical low centered near 35N, 73W.  On the 10th, the 
extratropical low had drifted north (37N, 73.5W) and intensified, while 
the tropical storm was becoming absorbed into the extratropical system 
near the warm frontal boundary on the east side of the extratropical low.)  
Partagas and Diaz analyzed this tropical system as peaking as a tropical 
storm, rather than as a hurricane as found in Neumann et al. and HURDAT.  
Partagas and Diaz' characterization of the intensity is retained here.
Two peripheral pressures of 997 mb (both at 12Z on the 9th) suggest winds 
of at least 53 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt 
chosen for the best track.  Peak winds reduced from the standard 
Category 2 (85 kt) down to a strong tropical storm (60 kt), since 
available observations support a substantially weaker system.  A storm 
tide of 9' attributed to this system observed in Norfolk, Virginia (Roth 
and Cobb 2001) was instead caused by the separate, strong extratropical 
storm system.

********************************************************************************

16376 10/21/1903 M= 7  9 SNBR= 403 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
16376 10/21*  0   0   0    0*212 720  30    0*215 725  30    0*219 729  30    0
16376 10/22*225 733  30    0*232 736  30    0*240 740  30    0*248 742  30    0
16376 10/23*256 743  30    0*263 743  30    0*270 743  35    0*279 745  40    0
16376 10/24*290 748  45    0*301 751  50    0*312 750  50    0E324 745  50    0
16376 10/25E336 731  50    0E345 715  50    0E358 695  50    0E380 669  50    0
16376 10/26E405 637  50    0E428 604  50    0E450 575  45    0E473 554  40    0
16376 10/27E491 537  40    0E511 524  40    0E530 510  35    0E552 495  35    0
16376 TS

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented
tropical storm.

********************************************************************************


16380 11/17/1903 M= 9  9 SNBR= 382 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
16380 11/17/1903 M= 9 10 SNBR= 404 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
                      **       ***

16385 11/17*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*197 396  35    0*201 410  35    0
16385 11/17*  0   0   0    0*190 370  35    0*195 385  35    0*199 397  35    0
                             *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***

16390 11/18*205 420  35    0*211 432  35    0*219 444  35    0*228 456  35    0
16390 11/18*204 413  35    0*211 429  35    0*219 444  35    0*228 456  35    0
            *** ***              ***

16395 11/19*237 468  35    0*245 480  40    0*255 493  45    0*264 500  50    0
16395 11/19*237 468  35    0*245 480  40    0*255 493  45    0*264 498  50    0
                                                                   ***

16400 11/20*273 502  60    0*282 500  65    0*290 492  70    0*292 483  70    0
16400 11/20*273 496  60    0*282 493  65    0*290 485  70    0*292 477  70    0
                ***              ***              ***  **          *** 

16405 11/21*293 473  70    0*293 462  75    0*293 454  75    0*295 447  80    0
16405 11/21*293 471  70    0*293 462  70    0*293 454  70    0*295 447  70    0
            *** ***                   **               **               **

16410 11/22*297 441  80    0*300 436  85    0*304 432  85    0*313 429  85    0
16410 11/22*297 441  70    0*300 436  70    0*304 432  70    0*313 429  70    0
                     **               **               **               **

16415 11/23*328 427  85    0*343 425  80    0*354 423  75    0*363 421  70    0
16415 11/23*328 427  70    0*343 425  70    0*354 423  70    0*363 421  70    0
                     **               **               **   

16420 11/24*370 419  70    0*377 417  70    0*385 414  70    0*394 409  70    0
16425 11/25*403 405  65    0*413 400  65    0*422 396  65    0E435 389  50    0
16430 HR  

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), 
originally storm number 9.  Peak winds are reduced from the standard
Category 2 (85 kt) down to Category 1 (70 kt) based upon available 
observations that suggest that the system was, at most, a minimal 
hurricane.

********************************************************************************

1903 - Additional Notes - 2004 REVISION:

1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into
the possible storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1997)
in mid-June 1903:

   "1903  Additional system #1  Block Island and Nantucket observations 
    suggest tropical storm force winds, although the structure of the 
    system is not clear.  Needs further research." 

Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the COADS 
ship database, the Historical Weather Map series, and coastal station data, 
this system did cause winds of gale force both over the Atlantic and at the 
coast, but it had an extratropical storm structure at that time.  The system 
formed near the northern Bahamas on the 9th; apparently achieved tropical 
depression status on the 10th near 28N, 78W; moved to the north-northeast on 
the 11th with maximum winds of 30kt; merged with a frontal boundary and
intensified on the 12th; made landfall late on the 12th in New York;
moved northward and occluded over land on the 13th; and weakened on
the 14th near Lake Erie.  Peak winds from this storm were 63 kt E at 
Block Island (this corrects to 52 kt after accounting for the high bias 
of the anemometer and converting to a peak 1 min wind), 42 kt SE at 
Nantucket, 36 kt E at Boston, 35 kt E at Portland, and a COADS ship of 
35 kt SE at 37N, 70W.  Lowest sea level pressure observed was 997 mb at 
New York City.  (All peak observations were on the 12th of June).  
However, the system at the time of tropical storm force conditions had
already acquired a baroclinic structure.  As an example, New York City
experienced 67 F temperature and 65 F dewpoint with a 27 kt E wind
under light rain conditions at 12 UTC on the 12th.  This became 57 F 
temperature, 54 F dewpoint with a 5 kt W wind under cloudy conditions
a day later.  Such changes are typical of that experienced in the region.
This structure is consistent with a moderate cold frontal feature.
Thus the system was likely not a tropical storm and is not included 
into HURDAT. 


Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned two additional systems considered 
for inclusion into HURDAT.  The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out 
of HURDAT for the following reasons:

2) August 20-23, 1903:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) November 23-26, 1903:  Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.


4) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into
a possible storm system identified by the Committee from information
within Monthly Weather Review:

   "1903  Additional system for 10-11 Sept.  A possible depression 
    in the Gulf of Mexico.  Isaac Cline states that warnings were 
    issued.  System not noted in P+D.   Needs further research."

Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the COADS 
ship database, the Historical Weather Map series, and coastal station data, 
this system did cause heavy rains and winds up to 25 kt in the northern
Gulf of Mexico and in Louisiana and Texas.  However, there was no closed
circulation with this system and it did not produce gale force winds.
Therefore, this system will not be included into HURDAT.

********************************************************************************

16435 06/11/1904 M= 4  1 SNBR= 383 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
16435 06/10/1904 M= 5  1 SNBR= 405 NOT NAMED   XING=0 SSS=0
         **         *          ***

(The 10th is new to HURDAT.)
16437 06/10*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*130 805  30    0*136 807  30    0

16440 06/11*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*155 793  35    0*159 792  35    0
16440 06/11*142 807  30    0*146 805  30    0*150 803  30    0*157 802  30    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16445 06/12*164 792  35    0*168 791  35    0*172 790  35    0*176 788  35    0
16445 06/12*162 801  35    0*168 799  40    0*173 797  45    0*177 795  50    0
            *** ***          *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16455 06/13*180 786  40    0*184 783  45    0*188 780  50    0*192 778  55    0
16450 06/13*181 792  55    0*184 789  60    0*187 785  65    0*194 777  70    0
            *** ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16455 06/14*195 774  60    0*197 770  55    0*199 765  35    0*201 760  25    0
16455 06/14*203 768  55    0*211 760  40    0*220 753  35    0*229 746  25    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***          *** ***  

16460 TS
16460 HR
      **

The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to increase the storm 
to minimal hurricane status (Category 1 - 70 kt) at landfall in Cuba, based 
upon the analysis from Perez (2000).  Partagas and Diaz otherwise made
reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et 
al. (1999).  Winds are also boosted from the 12th and the 13th based upon 
observations in Jamaica listed by Partagas and Diaz.  Winds reduced on the 
14th, due to earlier landfall in revised HURDAT.

********************************************************************************

16465 09/08/1904 M= 8  2 SNBR= 384 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
16465 09/08/1904 M= 8  2 SNBR= 406 NOT NAMED   XING=1 SSS=1
                               ***

16470 09/08*193 539  60    0*196 550  60    0*200 561  65    0*205 575  70    0
16470 09/08*162 540  50    0*167 548  50    0*173 557  50    0*181 571  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16475 09/09*210 586  70    0*214 596  70    0*218 606  70    0*223 615  70    0
16475 09/09*190 586  50    0*199 603  50    0*210 620  50    0*217 630  50    0
            ***      **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16480 09/10*226 621  70    0*230 630  70    0*236 640  70    0*241 650  70    0
16480 09/10*225 642  50    0*234 655  50    0*240 665  50    0*247 673  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16485 09/11*245 659  70    0*249 667  70    0*254 676  75    0*259 685  75    0
16485 09/11*251 680  50    0*255 690  50    0*259 700  50    0*262 708  50    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16490 09/12*263 693  75    0*267 702  80    0*271 711  85    0*275 721  85    0
16490 09/12*266 716  55    0*268 723  60    0*270 730  65    0*272 738  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **      *** ***  **

16495 09/13*280 732  85    0*284 742  85    0*290 753  85    0*296 760  85    0
16495 09/13*276 747  70    0*281 757  70    0*290 767  70    0*297 774  70    0
            *** ***  **      *** ***  **          ***  **      *** ***  **

16500 09/14*305 770  85    0*315 780  80    0*327 790  75    0*346 792  65    0
16500 09/14*304 780  70    0*315 785  70    0*327 790  70    0*346 795  60    0
            *** ***  **          ***  **               **          ***  **

16505 09/15E365 776  65    0E391 750  65    0E420 703  65    0E459 640  55    0
16505 09/15*365 776  55    0E391 750  65    0E420 703  75    0E459 640  55    0
           *         **                                **

16510 HR SC1 

No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).  Peak 
winds reduced from Category 2 (85 kt) down to Category 1 (70 kt) as a hurricane
since observations indicate that the system was, at best, a minimal hurricane.
Winds reduced accordingly from the 8th to the 14th.  Winds are increased on 
the 15th due to observations over New England in Partagas and Diaz while 
during its extratropical stage.  Landfall at South Carolina as a 70 kt 
Category 1 agrees with assessment in the U.S. landfall categorization
in HURDAT/Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999).  It is to be noted that 
this system had hurricane force winds (and produced these along the U.S. 
coast) during its extratropical stage on the 15th.  Full lifecycle of this 
hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage.

********************************************************************************

1904/03 – 2011 ADDITION:

00005 09/28/1904 M= 7  3 SNBR= 407 NOT NAMED   XING=0
00010 09/28*120 800  25    0*122 803  25    0*125 805  30    0*128 808  30    0*
00015 09/29*130 810  35    0*132 812  35    0*135 815  40    0*139 818  40    0*
00020 09/30*144 820  45    0*150 822  50    0*155 825  55    0*159 828  60    0*
00025 10/01*163 831  65    0*167 835  70    0*170 840  70    0*173 846  70    0*
00030 10/02*176 852  65    0*178 858  60    0*180 865  55    0*181 872  50    0*
00035 10/03*182 878  50    0*181 884  40    0*180 890  35    0*179 897  35    0*
00040 10/04*177 904  30    0*174 912  30    0*170 920  25    0*165 928  25    0*
00045 HR

This new hurricane was uncovered by Michael Chenoweth in his examination of the 
"Nautical Notes" section of the New Orleans Picayune newspaper archives.  The track 
and intensity was based upon ship observations from this newspaper as well as COADS 
data and Historical Weather Map observations.

September 28:  The Historical Weather Map analysis shows a broad closed low of at 
most 1010 mb pressure centered near 11N 75W.  Available observations are sparse, 
but these along with continuity suggests that a tropical depression was present 
near 12.5N 80.5W.  No gales or equivalent in pressure were observed.

September 29:  The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no features of interest 
in the Western Caribbean.  Available observations are sparse, but these along with 
continuity suggests that a tropical storm was present near 13.5N 81.5W.  No gales or 
equivalent in pressure were observed.  "The Norwegian steamship Utstein, Captain T. 
Aaravold, from Bluefields, Nicaragua….crossed the bar at 11:45 p.m. on October 3, and 
released from Quarantine at 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 4, and arrived about 10 a.m. at Post 15, 
First District. Reports sailing from Bluefields at 4 p.m. Sept. 28; had stormy weather, 
with strong northerly winds to Cape Gracias, thence to Yucatan strong north to 
north-northeast winds, with a heavy swell, thence northerly winds to bar" [New Orleans 
Picayune, 5 October 1904, p. 13] COMMENT: This ship left for New Orleans earlier than 
other ships from the area and stayed ahead of the storm center to its south and southeast.

September 30:  The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no features of interest in 
the Western Caribbean.  Available observations indicate that the center of a tropical 
storm was near 15.5N 82.5W.  Ship highlights:  SE 40 kt near 14N 82W (NOP).  "The 
Norwegian steamship Nicaragua, Captain L.H. Larssen, from Bluefields, Nicaragua….crossed 
the bar at 8 p.m. on Oct. 5, and arrived at 8 a.m. yesterday at Post 15, First District. 
She reports sailing from Bluefields on Sept. 30; when between Bluefields and Cape Gracias, 
ran into a hard wind from southeast, blowing with gale force, with a high sea, lasting to 
Yucatan; wind then moderated and shifted to north, light, with good weather to bar" 
[New Orleans Picayune, 7 October 1904, p. 13].  "The Norwegian steamship Harald, Captain 
K.S. Irgens, from Port Limon, Costa Rica….crossed the bar at 9 p.m. Oct. 3 and arrived at 
7:30 a.m. yesterday at Post 15, First District. Reports sailing from Port Limon at 2 p.m. 
Sept. 28, and encountered heavy weather off Swan Island for about twenty hours, with 
heavy seas, thence moderate weather to bar" [New Orleans Picayune, 5 October, p. 13] 
COMMENT: The steamship was probably in the area of Swan Island on 30 September and had 
bad weather to the north of the storm center.

October 1:  The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no features of interest in the 
Western Caribbean.  Available observations indicate that the center of a hurricane was 
near 17N 84W.  Ship highlights:  SE 70 kt at 05Z near 16N 83W (NOP); 50 kt near 18N 87W 
(NOP); NNE 40 near 19N 87W (NOP); SSE 40 kt near 16N 83W (NOP).  "The Norwegian steamship 
Ellis, Captain E. Hansen, from Port Limon….reports having sailed Sept. 29, at 5:30 p.m., 
had strong north winds and cloudy weather; passed Cape Gracias at 7:10 p.m., Sept. 30, 
but failed to distinguish the light; on rounding the Cape encountered a southeast wind, 
blowing with hurricane-like force, with torrents of rain; during the night the wind and 
sea kept increasing and at midnight the wind blew with terrific force, accompanied by 
fearful high seas; at 6 a.m., Oct. 1, the wind and sea began to moderate and was followed 
by fine weather during the remainder of the passage, crossing the bar [in Louisiana] at 
10 p.m., Oct. 3 and arrived at her wharf at 6 a.m. yesterday" [New Orleans Picayune, 
5 October 1904, page 13].  "The Norwegian steamship Beacon, Captain J. Pettersen, from 
ocas del Toro…