This object is an extremely faint planetary nebula located in the constellation of Cassiopeia at a declination of +65 degrees. It spans 2.5 arc-minutes in our apparent view.

This is one of the few times I have imaged an object without having seen it before. There must be other images of this object out there somewhere- I just haven't found one yet.

SIMBAD references a distance estimate of 4000 light years for this object, which means its diameter is 3 light years. Looking at the image, you can see about 30 stars superimposed in front of the nebula within that diameter of 3 light years. Something doesn't seem right here - I have never seen so many stars crowded into such a tight space, except possibly in star clusters (which this doesn't appear to be).

This is one of two objects (the other being Sh1-89) which were Sh1 objects but are not Sh2 objects. These two were included in Sharpless’ first (1953) catalog of emission nebula, but by the time of the second catalog (1959) these two objects were identified as planetary nebulae so they were not included. I can see why this nebula was initially mistaken for a HII region. It doesn't have the normal PN color and shape. If fact, based on the 100 PNs I have imaged so far, I would wager that this is an emission region and not a PN for these reasons:

1. Lack of any symmetry: Many PN are not symmetric, but they look as if they were deformed by the ISM from their initial symmetric shape. This one does not look like that.

2. Stars: A PN may have a few stars within its shape, but since they have to be fairly close to us to be seen, they are not far enough away to have many stars superimposed on their shape. As I state above, this one has at least 30 stars, including some that look like they are embedded in the object.

3. No fading: All PNs fade over time, especially on the edges. This nebula shows no fading at all.

4. No transparency: Older PNs are almost transparent in the center. This object is not transparent at all, and is actually brighter in the center.

I searched but could not find documentation on why this object was determined to be a PN. Who do I call to fix this apparent egregious mistake?

This is the only image of this object on Astrobin.