|
Re: MMUKILTEO WA
#72624
11/28/04 03:12 PM
|
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 3,759
DANIEL
OP
Saint
|
OP
Saint
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 3,759 |
No I didn't buy it. It even was on the market twice. I was going to buy it, but when I got the pictures from the seller the M was not as crisp and didn't impress me. It looked more like it was written in. Yes I should have bought it anyway. I have a blow up picture of the flag at work. I will have to find it and post it.
DANIEL
|
|
|
Re: MMUKILTEO WA
#72625
11/28/04 07:48 PM
|
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,133
JJ
Cruise Director
|
Cruise Director
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,133 |
When this eror was discovered HL seemed to go through a transition in fixing it. The "flat bottomed U" seemed to be the most common attempt but Sean found another weird variation. More of John's history here for the newer members. http://www.harbourlights.com/modifications/pages/flags.htm
|
|
|
Re: MMUKILTEO WA
#72626
11/29/04 12:08 AM
|
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 3,759
DANIEL
OP
Saint
|
OP
Saint
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 3,759 |
Here is the enlarged picture I got from the seller. What you guys think.
DANIEL
|
|
|
Re: MMUKILTEO WA
#72627
11/29/04 01:19 AM
|
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 13,047
Webmaster
Saint
|
Saint
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 13,047 |
For $25, I would have taken a chance. However, from this fuzzy picture, it looks like it might have been an MULKilteo and was hand fixed to read correctly. Looks like maybe the initial 'M' was filled in (not very good) and the other letters were modified so the 'UL' became 'MU'.
Just a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Forums39
Topics16,978
Posts184,640
Members2,579
|
Most Online10,155 Jan 14th, 2020
|
|
0 registered members (),
1,305
guests, and 5
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|