As a recent completer of the 520 set, I didn't worry too much about backs. If I was lucky to get some oddballs, I kept them over the piedmont/sweet caps. I still consider myself very early in the game though...so where to go from here might mean adding back runs, haven't decided. Personally, I'd rather add a t205 set than a back variation that requires you to flip the card over to see the difference.
I am wondering how close David Hall got to the known master front/back set. Obviously there are a few single copies around that he couldn't pry away...maybe he got as far as possible and that prompted him to bail out.
My respect to all the others on the hunt. And thanks to TedZ and PatC and others for their tireless academic pursuit. I for one, am fascinated on the evolution of our collective knowledge of the set. What did we know and when did we learn it. For example, when did people realize there was a 350/460 series that was unique from just 350 and 460? Was that Scot Reader in 2006? What new information only came to light due to Heitman's work, or Lew Lipset?
As an example, the set was originally (pre Burdick) referred to as the 521 set....but that was only coincidental with the number of subjects...521 was just the next number available to assign to the set....and at that time the number of subjects may have been around 520-522....originally sweeney no "B" was thought to be a unique intentional subject, but now has been relegated as just a printer error (missing red ink).
|
12-21-2021, 07:54 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode