retrowavelength wrote : Looking at them again, I'd hate to have to bet on
which was younger. :-)
rwl - i certainly agree with that - for a start in general i'm no better at
betting than i am at judging ages.
but one thing that does occur to me now is that, in the ordinary way of
things, set GA250 might have been expected to have been produced and issued
*before* the later numbered set GA282.
however i know that - even if in general dates & set-IDs *did* keep in
step - it is easy to think of many reasons why that might not have happened
in this particular case.
fredhogan
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|