I'm in trouble; I owe apologies.
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>Somehow i thought it would be David who goit angry with me; it was Kevin Struss.<BR><BR>Someone pointed out my post "Disillusioned with Mastro; still grateful," and he wrote me a (remarkably) polite and explanitory letter. he said he had examined the large photo of the'68 Red Stockings while on the phone with David, and, after he hung up, but before he called me, he examined my Walker photograph. His 'scope was only 20X, he said, but he saw the fibres, just as I did under 100X. He also said he had quite a collection of his own of albumen photos, including a number of N173s (of which I have none).<BR><BR>I'm really embarassed, and apologize.<BR><BR>Still glad i got my microscope, though--with A PIECE OF REAL PERUVIAN MUMMY WRAP! (the 'scope was made for kids, 8 and up--so everything possible is plastic, which is a good thing, because i break everything--but it has lenses which show things at 40X, 100X and 400X.<BR><BR>

I'm in trouble; I owe apologies.
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>with those damned Peruvian mummies...they create quite a nuisance buried on top of those mountains. Evidence shows that those ancient Peruvians were constantly destroying the mountain landscapes by digging holes and leaving foreign objects (bodies and such) up there. <BR><BR>Hey, you Peruvians! If you pack it in, you pack it out!

I'm in trouble; I owe apologies.
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>For the record, I had mentioned to Julie that Kevin talked to me briefly about the photograph that she won on auction night. By phone he asked me a few factual questions (photography-only questions, as I'm not a Fleetwood Walker or Reds historian), about two of the photos in the auction. Though I was unable to see the photographs in person, I didn't see/hear any photograph-related problems with either photo, and I'm sure both winners got fine photos. I don't beleive that Kevin had any doubts about their essential authenticity, but wanted to clear up a few photography points.<BR><BR>

I'm in trouble; I owe apologies.
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Also, my last post shouldn't be interpreted as me being mad or anything like that at Julie, as her concern all along was that she was buying an original photograph. That she went out and bought a microscope to examine her own photograph says more than enough, in my opinion.

I'm in trouble; I owe apologies.
 

Posted By: <b>julie</b><p>I'll have to check it out sometime.

I'm in trouble; I owe apologies.
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I hope it wasnt J Dimaggio (see the FBI stuff in the current SCD), or you may have a forged mummy diaper!