In seven pages of conversation, you have insisted that Skeet Grade Model 21s exist in fact and in Winchester advertising. That is not so. However, that is not important, at least in your mind. You seem to have little respect for the "bank of information" and think that Schwing's incorrect information should be considered correct for collectors in the future. So be it. However, I will not buy into it. This is not harmless discussion as you describe it. It is you putting out incorrect informaton for seven pages of internet forum, and you discrediting those who correct your errors and post correct information. I'm not doing this for fun. If I were doing it for fun, I would have been finished after page 1.
Bill, I have never stated much less insisted that Skeet Grade M-21s exist -- neither in fact nor in advertising. If fact I've explicitly agreed with you several times that they do not exist in advertising, and I've said it just this clearly in my posts above. I
don't think Schwing's use of the term "Skeet Grade" is
correct. I've only said I think it's likely he found something in Winchester's production records for 1936 and after that may be reflected in Cody letters as "Skeet Finish", that
he chose to describe as "Skeet Grade". It's just a speculative suggestion, not even really an opinion because I'm ready to abandon it as soon as someone reports "Skeet Finish" on a pre-1936 Cody letter.
Far from putting out wrong information, I've not put out ANY information other than quoting Schwing's puzzling statement about "Skeet Grade". I've simply suggested a way to reconcile information that in some aspects seems inconsistent. Where have I discredited anyone?? Geez Bill, you're all alone in making this an argument over "Skeet Grade" -- it's really about perceiving harmless discussion as questioning your authority. No one else that was with you about the literature (which I fully accept as accurate!) is with you in mischaracterizing attempts to learn whether Schwing found something changed in 1936 but named it in a way Winchester didn't.
Whether you won't take the time to actually read what Bob and I are saying or you're unable to discard pre-conceptions that cause you to misinterpret, in either case there's no point and it's not worth the aggravation to explain any more what I can't make any more clear.
Jay
