> retrowavelength <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:nN2dnX1z17htLIvBnZ2dnUU7-fEAAAAA@giganews.com:
>
>>
>>
>> My only theory is that sometimes the numbers were for sets &
>> sometimes they were just the phtotgrapher's cataloging/filing
>> numbers. And as to sets, we "know" there were series sold in packs
>> of 12 but I've also seen sets with more than 12 of the same ID
>> numbers, so were they sold as sets or were they someone else's odd
>> cataloging artifact? Of course, they never suspected that 50 or so
>> years later people would be trying to make sense out of whatever
>> hodgepodge numbering systems "worked" for them at the time.
>>
>> --rwl
>
> Thanks for the reply and the larger pictures. The group was a little
> slow so I thought I would post these to see if someone else had any
> better thoughts. I agree, that these ID numbers are somewhat of a
> mystery to all of us as we try to puzzle out what happened long ago.
>
> HM
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
You're welcome & thanks for posting a thoughtful question. My apologies
for the delayed reply. There was a death in my family & we had a funeral &
associated stiff to iron out far from home & from convenient internet
access.
--rwl
|
|