On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:27:23 -0500 "Mike Brock" <brockm@...>
writes:

Byron Rose notes:

I would be more inclined to suspect the date on Mikes photo. All

to

often the dates attributed to photographs have been attempts to

read

weweigh dates on the car sides or outright guesses.

Would you believe a 1955 date on an air tank?

Mike Brock

Mike,

Are you sure that IS the date, and not the part of it that's not been
scraped off from having said "58"? I don't mean to get into an argument
over this, but I've always been skeptical about dates given to photos. I
will agree that an air tank date is usually more reliable, but if it's a
car I like, the date doesn't bother me a bit. See rule number one!

I also didn't feel it was worth jumping all over Vic Roseman about a
perceived error in dating a cars birth. The point I thought I was making
is that the ORER data pretty much confirmed his dates. Your photo simply
made a liar out of that usually unimpeachable source. I do agree with
the comment that Vic is still the only person to write a book on REA. We
desperately need a more thorough study, along with FGEX and
Pullman-Standard.

BSR
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.