Originally Posted By: BoBlade
Joe,

I don't know how you can say that you're now in fact aligned with what the 'preponderance" of evidence suggests, yet go on to say I would like to have some hard proof which up to this point has been unobtanium.THE SHEATHS THEMSELVES ARE THE HARD PROOF! Even now, you can't bring yourself to call these sheaths Heisers (Transitional? Come on....) In any event, I've said my piece and there is no merit in further debating minutiae with you.

If I came across hard, I apologise. It was in the interest of all the other collectors out there.


Best,



Again Ron, you need to READ MY POSTS THOROUGHLY which to this point you apparently have not done. It is all in the details my friend, or as you say, minutiae. Or did I call it that?

On page 11 of this thread a quote from my post:

Quote:
I personally think that the “style” of the sheath in overall appearance is surely the most critical piece of evidence and what brought us here to begin with. The sheaths in question just “look” like a Heiser product, plain an simple. Take away all the minutia and just look at the sheath. What do you have? I addressed this in my last article on the subject linked previously in this thread.


You are repeating what I have already said. Remember, no one was on board until the sheath auction, then the zealots come out of the woodwork. Again, you should read the posts thoroughly.

Also, to be clear, Heiser made sheaths marked with the RMK stamp are most assuredly transitional sheaths. Otherwise, what are they?

In the "interest of all the other collectors out there", I am going with the position that this is still a friendly discussion. I believe most are on the same page, but I for one still like to dig a bit and look for the proverbial smoking gun. So, if some unequivocal information comes to light, it will be presented.
_________________________
www.rmkcollector.com

BUY-SELL-TRADE