Based on a recessional velocity of 4560 km/sec, IC 500 is about 210 million light years away. Given that and its apparent size of 1.1 by 0.45 arcmin, it is about 70 thousand light years across.

(Per Corwin, Wolf listed this as a new discovery in his first "Nebel-liste" based on Heidelberg Bruce plates, but Dreyer realized it was a rediscovery of IC 501, and managed to avoid a duplicate listing.) Apparent size 0.55 by 0.45 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.55 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.3 by 0.9 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.9 by 1.3 arcmin.

Apparent size 2.2 by 1.5 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.2 by 1.1 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 507 (Swift list VIII (#47), 1860 RA 08 18 28±, NPD 89 59.6) is "most extremely faint, pretty small, very little elongated, between 2 stars". The second IC adds "Not found by Howe (3 nights)." The position precesses to RA 08 25 37.7, Dec -00 26 46, but there is nothing there, as previously noted by Howe. The identification of IC 507 rests on two errors, one of which is known to have been made, and the other is a reasonable possibility. Per Corwin, Dreyer made a mistake of about half a minute of time in precessing Swift's 1890 position to the equinox of 1860, and the corrected position is 10 arcmin due north of NGC 2590. Swift's description of his #47 is a good fit to the NGC object (which see for anything else), so there is a good chance that he made a "single-digit" error of 10 arcmin in the declination, and if so the identification of IC 507 as a duplicate listing of NGC 2590 would be certain.

Apparent size 0.9 by 0.9 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.9 by 1.7 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.2 by 0.6 arcmin.

Historical Misidentification: Per Dreyer, IC 511 (Swift list VIII (#48), 1860 RA 08 25 22, NPD 16 01.0) is "very faint, small, considerably extended, 2 stars to southeast". The position precesses to RA 08 40 55.8, Dec +73 30 01, less than an arcmin northeast of PGC 24397, and although (as noted by Corwin) there are two stars to the northwest instead of the southeast, it was long presumed that PGC 24397 was what Swift observed, with an accidental reversal of directions for the two stars (which is not an uncommon mistake). But although reasonable, that was proven wrong on Aug 21, 2017. As discussed below, Swift's right ascension almost certainly had a large error, and the fact that his position fell near PGC 24397 was merely a coincidence. However, since the mistaken identification is well established in the literature, PGC 24397 is discussed in the next entry as a warning about the mistake.
The Fly In The Ointment: Swift recorded four nebulae on Sep 1, 1888, but save for his list VIII #48 (which became IC 511), none of their positions corresponds to an obvious nebular candidate. Until recently, one (IC 895) was thought to be lost or nonexistent, and the other two (IC 1028 and IC 1045) were associated with dubious candidates. However, in August 2017 it was shown that all three suffered from a 10 minute error in their right ascensions (a not unusual error for Swift, who used setting circles to measure positions, instead of micrometric measurements, and sometimes mis-set or mis-read his setting circles), and as a result all three have now been correctly identified with the objects Swift actually observed (see any of the other three IC objects for a detailed discussion). This led me to the question, is it merely a coincidence that PGC 24397 lies close to Swift's recorded position, and all four of his observations on Sep 1, 1888 suffered from a 10 minute error in their right ascension?
A Corrected Identification Of IC 511: If, as for the other three objects observed by Swift on the night in question, we add 10 minutes of time to the 1860 position of IC 511 (that is, change it to 1860 RA 08 35 22), the corrected position precesses to RA 08 50 37.9, Dec +73 28 28, which lies only 1.3 arcmin northeast of NGC 2646, a galaxy which perfectly fits Swift's description, including the wide double star to the southeast (for even though the overall galaxy appears round instead of elongated, its bright center, which is all that Swift could have seen, is extended east-west). So it seems probable that IC 511 suffered from the same 10 minute of time error in its position as the other three objects observed by Swift on Sep 1, 1888 (which actually makes more sense than if it were the only one of the four not to suffer from that error), and it is actually a misrecorded observation of NGC 2646.
A Possible Nail In The Coffin For PGC 24397: There is another factor that could be used to determine whether IC 511 is PGS 24397, the object near Swift's recorded position, or NGC 2646, the one 10 minutes of time to the east; namely, though not in the NGC, Swift wrote that his VIII #48 was the southwestern of two nebulae, and his VIII #49 the northeastern, so they should be reasonably close together, in more or less the stated relative position. As shown in the images below there is nothing at all to the east of PGC 24397, but IC 520, which is Swift's VIII #49, lies to the east of NGC 2646, just where it should be if IC 511 is actually NGC 2646. So it appears essentially certain that IC 511 is NGC 2646, and the apparent agreement of Swift's position with that of PGC 24397 is merely an unfortunate accident.
A Caveat And A Conclusion: Swift didn't record IC 511 when he discovered IC 520 (three nights earlier), presumably due to its being much fainter, and though his description of IC 520 includes "another suspected", which may well have been NGC 2646, there is nothing that proves he actually observed both objects on the same night; he may have simply added southwestern and northeastern of two to his VIII #48 and #49 based on their relative positions in the published list. However, even if the "pair" was only based on his list, NGC 2646 is a far better fit to Swift's description, and it is more likely that all four of Swift's observations of Sep 1 suffered from the same error than that only one of them happened to be correct, so there is little reason to doubt that IC 511 is indeed NGC 2646. (As a precaution I ran this by Corwin, and he agrees with my analysis, so I feel confident of the result.)
Physical Information: Given the duplicate entry, see NGC 2646 for anything else.

Historical Misidentification: As discussed in the entry for IC 511, PGC 24397 was long thought to be Swift's list VIII #48, but it is now known that what Swift actually observed was NGC 2646; so this entry serves as a warning about the earlier misidentification.
Physical Information: Based on a recessional velocity of 3625 km/sec (and H₀ = 70 km/sec/Mpc), PGC 24397 is about 165 to 170 million light years away. Given that and its apparent size of about 1.5 by 0.5 arcmin (from the images below), it is about 70 to 75 thousand light years across.

Apparent size 2.2 by 1.6 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.3 by 0.8 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.75 by 0.4 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.2 by 0.6 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.3 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.65 by 0.35 arcmin.

Historical Identification (Or Lack Thereof): Per Dreyer, IC 518 (Bigourdan #151, 1860 RA 08 29 51, NPD 88 50) is "very faint, perhaps a very small cluster". The position precesses to RA 08 37 03.6, Dec +00 40 58, but there is nothing there save for widely scattered stars. Per Corwin the right ascension in the IC, although correctly copied from Bigourdan's published paper, is off by a minute of time (since Bigourdan stated that the position of IC 518 was the same as the NGC position for NGC 2618), and should have read 08 28 51. This yields a modern position of RA 08 36 03.6, Dec +00 41 08, which is a little east of NGC 2618, but there is still nothing there save for a few randomly scattered stars.
A Third Stab At Bigourdan's Position: Bigourdan made two observations of his #151, on Mar 15, 1890 and Feb 16, 1896, the same nights that he observed NGC 2618, using the same comparison star (BD+1 2137 = TYC 210-1534-1), which per the discussion in the entry for NGC 2618 is about 1 arcmin to the northeast of Bigourdan's position (which he obtained from the 1855 Bonner Durchmusterung, which typically has errors of an arcmin or more). The modern position of the star is J2000 RA 08 36 20.3, Dec +00 46 09, which precesses to (1900) RA 08 31 11.2, Dec +01 06 55, and adding Bigourdan's offsets of -13.2 seconds of time in right ascension and -4' 36" (± 2") in declination, IC 518 should be near (1900) RA 08 30 58, Dec +01 02 19(± 2), which precesses to J2000 RA 08 36 07.0, Dec +00 41 34 (whence the position shown above), but there is still nothing there. So with three strikes we seem to be out of options, and IC 518 is almost certainly nonexistent or irretrievably lost.

Apparent size 0.9 by 0.85 arcmin.

Historical Identification: Per Dreyer, IC 520 (Swift list VIII (#49), 1860 RA 08 38 26, NPD 15 59.5) is "pretty bright, pretty large, brighter middle, star near". The position precesses to RA 08 53 36.9, Dec +73 29 30, on the northwestern rim of the galaxy listed above, the description fits and there is nothing else nearby, so the identification is certain.
Physical Information: Based on a recessional velocity of 3485 km/sec (and H₀ = 70 km/sec/Mpc), IC 520 is about 160 to 165 million light years away, in good agreement with redshift-independent distance estimates of about 130 to 165 million light years. Given that and its apparent size of about 2.2 by 1.9 arcmin (from the images below). if is about 100 to 105 thousand light years across.

Apparent sizes 0.95 by 0.6 arcmin and 0.25 by 0.15 arcmin. Almost certainly an interacting system, as aside from the apparent distortion caused by their interaction, both have nearly identical recessional velocities. Note: Given the large difference in brightness between the two galaxies involved in this system, only the brighter one could have been seen by Javelle, so strictly speaking only PGC 24658 is part of IC 521. However, since it is part of an interacting pair of galaxies, it seems appropriate to consider the pair as corresponding to the IC entry, even though the fainter galaxy was not a factor in Javelle's observation.

Apparent size 1.2 by 1.0 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.2 by 0.8 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.05 by 0.65 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.0 by 0.25 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.8 by 0.4 arcmin. Supposedly a Seyfert galaxy (type Sy 2), but nucleus seems relatively faint for such a designation.

Apparent size 2.1 by 1.9 arcmin (including fainter outer arms).

Based on a recessional velocity of 3810 km/sec, IC 528 is about 175 million light years away, in reasonable agreement with a redshift-independent distance estimate of 195 million light years, but much closer than a second estimate of 285 million light years. Using the 185 million light year average of the lower values and its apparent size of 1.45 by 0.65 arcmin, it is probably about 80 thousand light years across. (NED notes a second recessional velocity measurement of 8635 km/sec, but that is obviously an erroneous attribution almost certainly belonging to PGC 25779.) Although comprising Hickson Compact Group 36 with PGC 25779, 25782 and 25791, IC 528 has no connection to the other galaxies, as it is much closer than any of them.

Although comprising Hickson Compact Group 36 with IC 528 (which see for images), PGC 25782 and PGC 25791, PGC 25779 has no connection to the other galaxies, as they have very different distances, and must be merely optical companions. Based on a recessional velocity of 8645 km/sec, PGC 25779 is about 400 million light years away. Given that and its apparent size of 0.35 by 0.2 arcmin, it is about 40 thousand light years across.

Although comprising Hickson Compact Group 36 with IC 528 (which see for images), PGC 25779 and PGC 25791, PGC 25782 has no connection to the first two, as they are both much closer to us, and are merely optical companions; however, it may be related to PGC 25791, which has a very similar distance. Based on its recessional velocity of 15670 km/sec, a straightforward calculation indicates that PGC 25782 is about 730 million light years away. However, for objects at such distances we should take into account the Universal expansion during the time it took their light to reach us. Doing that shows that the galaxy was just over 685 million light years away at the time the light by which we see it was emitted, about 705 million years ago (the difference between the two numbers being due to the expansion of the intervening space during the light-travel time). Given that and its apparent size of 0.5 by 0.15 arcmin, it is about 100 thousand light years across.

Although comprising Hickson Compact Group 36 with IC 528 (which see for images), PGC 25779 and PGC 25782, PGC 25791 has no connection to the first two, as they are both much closer to us, and are merely optical companions; however, it may be related to PGC 25782, which has a very similar distance. Based on its recessional velocity of 15580 km/sec, a straightforward calculation indicates that PGC 25791 is about 725 million light years away. However, for objects at such distances we should take into account the Universal expansion during the time it took their light to reach us. Doing that shows that the galaxy was just under 685 million light years away at the time the light by which we see it was emitted, about 700 million years ago (the difference between the two numbers being due to the expansion of the intervening space during the light-travel time). Given that and its apparent size of 0.45 by 0.1 arcmin, it is about 90 thousand light years across.

Apparent size 3.6 by 1.35 arcmin.

Apparent size 2.15 by 1.0 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.8 by 0.5 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 532 (Bigourdan #152, 1860 RA 09 12 29, NPD 106 10) is "pretty bright, pretty large, elongated east-west, brighter middle". The position precesses to RA 09 19 03.0, Dec -16 45 16 (whence the position above), but there is nothing there nor anywhere near there. Per Corwin this is an unusual case, being one of only seven "novae" discovered by Bigourdan for which he does not give detailed measurements, and the only one of them for which he made more than one observation. It might have been a chance observation of a comet (as can be shown to be the case for IC 2120 and is a possible explanation for IC 4977), though the double observation argues against that, as a comet would probably have moved between times (depending upon how much time actually passed), or it might have been a "Fausse image?" (such as a 'ghost' of the nearby 7th-magnitude star), as suggested by Bigourdan himself. At any rate there is no current explanation for what, based on its description, should be an easy object to find, and it can only be listed as lost or nonexistent.

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.2 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.8 by 0.3 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.65 by 0.45 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.35 by 0.4 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.2 by 1.0 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 538 (Bigourdan #154, 1860 RA 09 19 18, NPD 66 23) is a "13th magnitude star in very faint nebulosity (perhaps = h599, whose right ascension was uncertain)", h599 being NGC 2885. The position precesses to RA 09 27 19.2, Dec +23 00 44, just southeast of the galaxy in question, so the identification is certain. The duplicate listing is due to the fact, as noted by Dreyer, that the right ascension of NGC 2885 was very poorly determined (per Corwin, it was about 25 seconds of time too large); but obviously the equality of the listings for IC 538 and NGC 2885 (which see for anything else) was suspected right from the start.

Apparent size 1.35 by 1.05 arcmin.

Apparent size 2.4 by 0.35 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 541 (Swift list IX (#21), 1860 RA 09 23 29, NPD 93 38.2) is "most extremely faint, pretty small, round, 10th magnitude star to the south". The position precesses to RA 09 50 31.3, Dec -04 14 56 (whence the position above), but there is nothing there. If not for the "10th magnitude star to the south", almost any faint star or galaxy in the region might be chosen as an all-too-tentative identification of Swift's object; but there are few such stars in the region, and none near anything of interest, so there appears to be no hope of identifying what (if anything) Swift thought he observed.

Apparent size 1.2 by 0.35 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 543 (Bigourdan #155, 1860 RA 09 24 29, NPD 104 10) is "very faint, pretty large, elongated, diffuse". The position precesses to RA 09 31 09.5, Dec -14 46 50 (whence the position above), but there is nothing there save for NGC 2902 (a few arcmin to the northwest), which has therefore sometimes been (mis)identified as IC 543, but per Corwin is unlikely to be the same object, as Bigourdan also observed the NGC object in its correct position. After dismissing a couple of other unlikely possibilities Corwin suggests that perhaps the night in question simply had poor seeing, as Bigourdan also recorded two other unidentifiable objects (IC 532 and 759) on the same night. If that were the case, the most likely identification of IC 543 would be with a small group of stars with a separation comparable to a fairly large somewhat elongated galaxy, but there is no such group near the IC position, so there appears to be no satisfactory identification for IC 543, hence its listing as lost or nonexistent.

Apparent size 0.9 by 0.25 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.6 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.25 by 0.65 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 547 (Javelle #165, 1860 RA 09 29 21, NPD 101 49.0) is "pretty bright, small, round, a little brighter middle". The position precesses to RA 09 36 07.2, Dec -12 26 27, practically on top of the galaxy, so the identification is certain. The duplicate listing with NGC 2947 (which see for anything else) is due to Leavenworth's position being off by more than 2 minutes of time. The triplicate listing with IC 2494 (which per Corwin appears to make it the only object with entries in all three NGC/IC catalogs) was apparently a mere oversight on Swift's (and Dreyer's) part.

Apparent size 0.7 by 0.25 arcmin>

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.35 arcmin.