It must be symptomatic of the HL collectors' disease that you can read two totally different points of view and agree with both. I enjoyed Tim's comments on retirements and LEs vs. GLOWS and understood it even though (like Paul) I wasn't sure where the logic trail was going or ended up.

As the collectors' disease took hold in early 1998, I got up to speed on the desirability of various retired pieces and felt an urgency to locate surviving pieces at retail before they were gone. The '91-94 pieces were gone, but '95-'97 had some great pieces. After getting these and filling in with society and Christmas pieces, the sense of urgency fell off as fiscal reality set in. I concentrated '98 funds on the reunion and other special pieces. Even though the '98 pieces are great, I haven't felt the need to chase after them yet. So, I think '98 may be a catch your breath year for many relatively new collectors and the slow down in retirements may (as has been stated above) reflect a clearing of dealers' shelves of earlier "retired" pieces, rather than a drop off in collector interest. The market and retirements will pick up.

I think GLOWs fill important needs. They allow newer collectors to get lights that are important to them. They attract tourists and giftware buyers, some of whom may come to value HLs and turn on to LEs. This would help the overall market for LEs. I'm not sure that the market needs or will support as many GLOWs as have been issued. Portland Head, Cape Hatteras, and other widely known lights, sure. I'm not sure about some of the the other GLOWs.

I agree with Tim that LEs should be just as detailed as modern techniques permit, but should be smaller in size to differentiate them from LEs. I would appreciate it if dealers would separate them from LEs on the shelves to reduce clutter and confusion.