> 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.
>
>
Thank you. The group needs all of us for I fear we are on the wane.
--rwl
|
|