<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Grand Central Terminal Turns 100</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/02/grand-central-terminal-turns-100/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/02/grand-central-terminal-turns-100/</link>
	<description>Keeping You Current</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 19:55:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moshe Feder</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/02/grand-central-terminal-turns-100/comment-page-1/#comment-4198</link>
		<dc:creator>Moshe Feder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:51:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/?p=10670#comment-4198</guid>
		<description>One more correction:

You say, &quot;In 1957, a NASA rocket was displayed inside the terminal…&quot; but NASA didn&#039;t exist until 1958.

That rocket actually belonged to the Army. It was so tall that a small hole had to be cut in the ceiling for its nosecone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One more correction:</p>
<p>You say, &#8220;In 1957, a NASA rocket was displayed inside the terminal…&#8221; but NASA didn&#8217;t exist until 1958.</p>
<p>That rocket actually belonged to the Army. It was so tall that a small hole had to be cut in the ceiling for its nosecone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moshe Feder</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/02/grand-central-terminal-turns-100/comment-page-1/#comment-4160</link>
		<dc:creator>Moshe Feder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:45:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/?p=10670#comment-4160</guid>
		<description>Smithsonian, I expect higher standards of historical and general factual accuracy from you.

There is no &quot;opal clock&quot; at Grand Central, although many web sources join you in spreading this canard.

The four-faced, spherical clock atop the information booth uses OPAL GLASS, a common, non-precious translucent material often used in lamps. It&#039;s also known as &quot;milk glass&quot; and, I can assure you, is no more made of opals than it is made out of milk!

Even if the NY Central or the Vanderbilts _had_ wanted to do something as crazily expensive as use a semi-precious stone for the clock faces, the fact is that no opal large enough for even one face was discovered until relatively recently. And it&#039;s not translucent!

A New York Times article from the 50s, when the clock was being  cleaned and restored, confirms what I&#039;ve said here, noting:  &quot;Each of the glass faces was twenty-four inches in diameter...&quot;. That article can be accessed here:  http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E5D8173AE53BBC4851DFB766838F649EDE</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Smithsonian, I expect higher standards of historical and general factual accuracy from you.</p>
<p>There is no &#8220;opal clock&#8221; at Grand Central, although many web sources join you in spreading this canard.</p>
<p>The four-faced, spherical clock atop the information booth uses OPAL GLASS, a common, non-precious translucent material often used in lamps. It&#8217;s also known as &#8220;milk glass&#8221; and, I can assure you, is no more made of opals than it is made out of milk!</p>
<p>Even if the NY Central or the Vanderbilts _had_ wanted to do something as crazily expensive as use a semi-precious stone for the clock faces, the fact is that no opal large enough for even one face was discovered until relatively recently. And it&#8217;s not translucent!</p>
<p>A New York Times article from the 50s, when the clock was being  cleaned and restored, confirms what I&#8217;ve said here, noting:  &#8220;Each of the glass faces was twenty-four inches in diameter&#8230;&#8221;. That article can be accessed here:  <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E5D8173AE53BBC4851DFB766838F649EDE" rel="nofollow">http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E5D8173AE53BBC4851DFB766838F649EDE</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
