On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:21:18 -0600, retrowavelength
<retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >If there weren't already twelve of them in these indexes,
> >I would have said it /was/ NC77.
>
>That's excellent, RR! Perhaps there were more pictures from the shoot
>than made it into the marketed set NC77 but somehow made it into another
>set number or were sold & used by another publisher for a completely
>different product.
As reasonable an explanation as we're likely to find!
RR
|
|
.jpg 1/2')){kind=link}