On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 11:16:23 +0100, "fredhogan"
<fredhogan@nothere.com> wrote:
>Rodney Reason wrote : ... Slewing off track a bit, here's a few of the
>friend with the eyebrows.
>
>RR - many thanks for those.
>
>the reason that i sent you copies of those two pictures previously rather
>than just quote the IDs was that i wasn't sure how to write those IDs!
>
>for myself i have them written as 'XO13' etc - but of course they could
>equally well be 'OX13' i know.
I guess everyone develops their own system for dealing with
the ambiguous ID numbers. A rancher might label your example
as Circle X 13 :) Shortly after I started gathering vintage
ladies I decided to ignore the dashes and slashes and under-
-or-over lines, etc., to make it easier for me to search for
them. Of course I sometimes run into collisions.
>anyway - first - that picture you sent with the black panties i wasn't sure
>belonged in set XO13 - but it may well turn out to do so.
Yes, there's just not enough information available yet.
>your pictures from set XO18 were better than the ones i had - many thanks -
>and as i seem to have that set complete i attach an index of it.
You're welcome, and thanks for the index! Glad I could offer
an upgrade.
>beyond those sets i only have some from one further named set - XO16 - and
>attach copies of the pictures i have.
Thanks. I thought I had a couple from that set but haven't
been able to find them. Must have been my imagination.
>lastly i attach a couple of items that might or might not belong in this XO
>group - time will no doubt tell!
Interesting. Will have to keep eyes open for more of them.
RR
|
|