08-19-2002, 05:45 PM
I read PD's book wrong..it's not the width sideways but from face on ..they are thinner.
It is a small type for sure.
Just like PD's book said the Concave version and the "small" version are very similar.
I found this one today when I examined a group!!! (a concave)
A concave and a "small" attached
Chris
It is a small type for sure.
Just like PD's book said the Concave version and the "small" version are very similar.
I found this one today when I examined a group!!! (a concave)
A concave and a "small" attached
Chris











