Actually Tim, I don't think so. I think (or maybe it's I hope) that HLs original intent was to have a substantial difference between an LE and GLOW of the same lighthouse. What we don't know is what the LE might have become over time. HLs had a plan in mind when the first GLOWs appeared. The collector discussions at the time caused them to change it.

I said in an earlier post that I agreed with Sean (and by extension you and other's that don't like the GLOWS) up to a point. Looking at and evaluating the GLOWs from the point of view of a collector of LEs, I understand your position, if the only criteria is to preserve the value of the collection of LEs. However, if the value of collecting is as intrinsic as you've said before, then for many collectors, having GLOWs and LEs co-exist, and for some GLOWs to come before the LE, is a bad thing only in that it may take many more years for all of the LEs to appear. The LE collector still gets the LE.

You and the others are right in that there needs to be a substantial difference between the GLOW and the LE. That is the wild card. We don't know what might have been.

From HLs perspective, they need to grow revenues in order to grow their company. They can do that in a couple of ways. More money from the same sources, or more money from more sources. I think most of our wallets would prefer a break and that HLs develop other lines of revenue instead of releasing more and more expensive LEs every year. I think this is another factor that plays into the recent spate of 50% off sales. HLs may be going to the 'dedicated collector' well too often and the well is drying up.

Interesting conversation. Let's keep it going.

Rick