Returning to the original topic, the main issue of (at least temporarily, until good sequences become available) using GSC (or USNO) as visual comparison stars is the inhomegeneity of the GSC between the northern and southern hemispheres. Northern GSC magnitudes are usually based on 'Quick-V' exposures, which roughly approximates the V response, while the southern part is from the existing blue survey plates. Scatter and zero-point error of northern GSC sequence is usually as good as (or even better) AAVSO preliminary charts, when used carefully (reject too bright -- often close double -- stars etc.). I once surprised to see my CCD measures and GSC magnitudes agreeing within 0.2 mag for almost every star measured (later I learned it's a lucky case; some fields are substantially worse). From visual observer's standpoint, northern GSC looks usually enough for initial guesses for "new" objects without available charts. People even tend to continue using GSC magnitude even some "preliminary degree" charts are made available (Nova Sco 1997 magnitudes are mostly based on GSC sequence). I presume the time for an observer is too limited to continuously prepare materials before observation. If some printout from a star mapping software looks reasonable, it would be no wonder if the observer has no motivation to spend addtional time in gathering and plotting new photometric data. The recent SNe misfortunes seem to arise from the southern extension of the "received availability" of the northen GSC as temporary visual standard. If only 'Quick-V' survey were employed in producing the GSC... Regards, Taichi Kato