retrowavelength <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:sPednfyvoMg4roDBnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>> 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
My condolences on your loss.
It is good to have you back.
|
|