You fail to grasp the point that Miller was making, Larry. That point being that sheer numbers of production, of differing designs, is not a reliable indicator of usefulness..............even if the example he used isn't perfect by all "considerations". It is obvious to me that he wasn't arguing that Crescents and Stevens(es) were at the top of the quality list, but that they were far above Purdeys in number and use. Thus validating his claim that sometimes it is lonely at the top. Evidently you assumed, wrongly, that he meant the top of the quality list. Everybody on this board knows that Miller is smarter than that, including you.

Did you ever refuse to vote to approve the minutes of a board or committee meeting because a comma was in the wrong place? Just curious.

SRH

May God bless America and those who defend her.