Pogson's observation quickly attracted academic attention. The amateur astronomer Lt-Col. George Lyon Tupman, writing in the January 1873
Monthly Notices, noted problems with both the positions of Pogson's "comet" compared to that of Biela and the 12-week difference between Pogson's observations and the projected orbit of Biela: however, he conceded that the difference in inclination could be explained if Pogson had seen the secondary comet of Biela on the 3rd and the primary on the 4th. A number of orbits were subsequently published for Pogson's object by Karl Bruhns (1875) and
Heinrich Kreutz (1886 and 1902), but being based on only three positions are rather speculative. If the object seen by Pogson was a comet, it has not been detected since. The Irish astronomer
William Henry Stanley Monck was later to suggest that "the comets of Pogson and Biela may belong to the same family and may co-operate in producing the same diffused meteor shower". He was also to suggest that a possible comet seen by James Buckingham on November 9, 1865 might have been the same object as that seen by Pogson, and suggested an 1893 return, which did not occur.
Patrick Moore was later to comment of Pogson's observations that "[he] was a highly experienced observer [...] so there seems little room for error. On the other hand, it is inconceivable that the comet was Biela's; it must have been another, quite unconnected, merely happening to lie in the same region of the sky – an almost incredible coincidence." The writer
Amédée Guillemin described this coincidence as "a very striking, I might almost say, romantic episode in astronomical history". As Pogson was the only observer,
Marsden's catalogues (1979, 1982) do not list the object, although
Kronk (2003) includes it. == See also ==