Run 40 SAO 189667      Suspected double. Possible projected separation of 18.8mas in the direction 30.4deg, with Dmag of about 0.35
Run 46 SAO 76140       Suspected double with the filter V1. Possible separation of 37mas in the direction 96.5deg with Dmag of about 0.8. This star is also suspected double by other authors (de Vegt & Gehlich 1976A&A....48..245D)
Run 88 SAO 164061      Reported as double by Radick et al. (1982AJ.....87.1874R), but not by Hipparcos, nor by our observation.
Run 97 SAO 76229       Mentioned as a double by McAlister & Hartkopf (1988, Cat. <VI/46>), but not detected by Hipparcos.
Run 4 SAO 138721       This star was also observed at the same date by Blazit et al. (1987A&AS...71...57B). Their results, projected in the direction 129.72deg gives a separation of 31.9+/-2.2mas, in good agreement with our results. With a triple star model, the rms of the residuals is significantly small. In a previous paper (Froesche & Meyer 1988Ap&SS.142..203F), we found 7+/-2mas for the projected separation of the third component.
Run 6 SAO 109739       Detected double with the green filter V2. No binarity detected with the blue filter B2 (Figs. 4 & 5). This mean that the Dmag is at 2.5 in this colour with respect to the noise level.
Run 7 SAO 146612       Very close binary, at the limit of detection, with a good agreement in the two channels (Figs. 6 & 7)
Run 14 SAO 76228       Same comments as for run 7 (Figs. 8 & 9)
Run 17 & 18 SAO 78233  Also observed as double by McAlister (1988, Cat. <VI/46>) and Couteau (1993, Priv. Comm.). The results of McAlister lead to a projected separation of 59.6 mas which is very close to our result at Nice. The observation by Couteau leads to a separation of 68.9mas, very close to our result at Calern
Run 20 SAO 79170       Since the angle of projection is close to 90deg, our measure is nearly free from projection effects and yields the true separation at this date. Unfortunately, agreement with McAlister and Couteau isn't easy to estimate, due to both scarcity and dispersion of available measurements.
Run 21 SAO 79241       Clearly double (Fig. 10) but not present in the McAlister or Couteau compilations. Not included in the Hipparcos Input Catalogue but detected by the satellite and also observed as double elsewhere (Schmidtke et al. 1989AJ.....97..909S)
Run 30 SAO 118576      Very close binary, at the limit of detection. In the three colors, the good signal to noise ratio permits a good determination of the slope and of the separation. In addition, the good agreement for the slope values rules out any effect artefact.
Run 43 &44 SAO 93062   Good agreement with the extrapolated values of McAlister. Theses runs are obtained at two different stations, leading to different slopes, but the separations and Dmag are in close agreement.
Run 62 SAO 79704       The well known triple star 82 Gem. Figs. 11,12 and 13 show our observation of the system as a double star. There is good agreement between the three channels for the projected separation and it is obvious that Dmag varies with the wavelength.
Run 64 SAO 118638      Star referenced by Couteau (1978, L'observation des etoiles doubles visuelles (Flammarion de.) 223). Projecting the true separation in the direction 80.99deg leads to 1.01", i.e. a good agreement with our results.
Run 79 SAO 77322       Our result can be compared with extrapoled values from McAlister. A faint lunar slope of about 1deg fully explains the slight observed discrepancy.
Run 85 SAO 98767       Known orbital binary. We have no recent comparison measurement.
Run 91 SAO 98427       Known orbital binary. There is a good agreement with values obtained from the position given by the ephemeris (Couteau et al. 1986, %eme catalogue d'ephemerides d'etoiles doubles visuelles (Publication de l'Observatoire de Nice) 140)
Run 98 SAO 76228       Same comets as for run 7 
Run 104 SAO 97645      The ephemeris for this orbital binary gives a predicted projected separation of 574.3mas, in very good agreement with our measurement.
Run 107 SAO 93062      Known orbital binary, but we have no recent observations for useful comparison.