dramatic fading of Nova Cas 1993

Visual magnitude estimates by VSOLJ members

object         YYMMDD(UT)   mag  code
R Ari          940213.483    85  Sny
R Boo          940217.830    86  Sny
S Boo          940217.798   113  Sny
V Cas          940217.421    81  Sny
UV Cas         940217.422   110  Sny
gamma Cas      940218.472    22  Kat
rho Cas        940218.472    46  Kat
nova1993 Cas   940208.388    84  Sny
               940209.409    83  Sny
               940213.441    90  Sny
               940217.416   101  Sny
               940218.422   124  Sny
               940218.476   109  Kat
R CrB          940217.785    58  Sny
R Cyg          940217.802    98  Sny
U Cyg          940217.842   103  Sny
V Cyg          940217.846   122  Sny
W Cyg          940217.831    69  Sny
Z Cyg          940217.801    88  Sny
RT Cyg         940217.806    97  Sny
SS Cyg         940217.833   121  Sny
AF Cyg         940217.809    70  Sny
CH Cyg         940217.803    76  Sny
chi Cyg        940217.815   110  Sny
P Cyg          940217.810    46  Sny
S Gem          940218.426   116  Sny
T Her          940217.788    90  Sny
AC Her         940217.791    76  Sny
W Lyr          940217.826    89  Sny
U Mon          940213.498    57  Sny
               940217.418    60  Sny
U Ori          940213.493   101  Sny
T Per          940217.424    88  Sny
Y Per          940213.485    94  Sny
R Sct          940217.819    58  Sny
R Vir          940217.837    90  Sny

Observer's code:
  Kat: T. Kato (Kyoto, Japan) instruments: 20L,3F,N
       Extremely poor sky condition.  The nova was barely visible with some
       uncertain identification.
  Sny: Y.Sekino (Kanagawa,Japan) instruments: 28SC,16L,12B,6R,5B
       He comments that the nova is much fainter than 11.1 mag (SK 11.17)
       star. (KGH01166@niftyserve.or.jp)

  I have been asking Y. Sekino for reality of his estimate.  However his
  description suggests that the nova has gone at least much fainter than
  mv=11, which would be much more reliable than my observation obtained
  just before completely covered with clouds.
  The rapid fade has resulted some confusion about the comparison star
  magnitudes among our observers.  So please treat this report as a very
  preliminary one.  The final data may be somewhat different from these
  figures.

Regards,
Taichi Kato