distance scale would be seen as a slope not equal to unity; a zero-point error in the trigonometric parallaxes as a non-zero intercept. For clarity, we have not plotted error bars in Figure 3; the mean error of $\pi_{HIP}$ is $\sim 1.6$ mas; the mean error of $\pi_{pho}$ is $\leq 20\%$ of $\pi_{pho}$.

The general trend of the data in Figure 3 seems to fall slightly below the 45-degree line, indicating that $\pi_{pho}$ may be $\sim 20\%$ too large for the nearer stars in the BSL sample. This largely reflects the fact that these nearby stars have the largest errors in $\pi_{pho}$. The bulk of the data, especially the more distant stars, with smaller $\pi_{pho}$ errors, falls closer to the 45-degree line. Thus we conclude from Figure 3 that there is not any significant systematic error in our photometric distance scale. It is also worth noting that Figure 3 shows very few outliers, [*i.e.*]{} cases where $\pi_{pho}$ and $\pi_{HIP}$ badly disagree. The large spread in $\pi_{HIP}$ near $\pi_{pho} = 0$ is due to the large errors in $\pi_{HIP}$ (up to 7 mas) for these faint, distant stars.

For the 424 stars with non-negative [*Hipparcos*]{} parallaxes, Table 1B lists in column 