Today’s Links May 19, 2013

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Share

Look Back 1955 Area 2-G Conclave

Here is another post from nearly 5 years ago, this time for the 1955 Area 2-G Conclave. Anyone have one of these patches available for trade or sale?

Area 2-G 1955 Conclave Patch

Area 2-G 1955 Conclave Patch

Ray speculates about the neckerchief pictured below

Ray Gould speculated…

These are the reasons why this makes sense:
1. Look at the neckerchief, stylistically, it looks very similar to the 1955 patch (which also makes no mention of the conclave or date).
2. It is more likely that the neckerchief was produced for the 1955 event because a patch was definitely issued (for the 1955 conclave) and was likely paired with it.
3. As Bill states, it is possible that nothing was produced for the 1953 meeting (it was probably not a true conclave because the 1956 patch clearly states “Area II-G 3rd Conference”). This implies that the first “true” conclave was 1954 (which has both a neckerchief slide and neckerchief….both clearly dated and stylistically similar). I believe the said 1955 patch was erroneously attributed to this (1954) conclave in the collecting guide (it stylistically looks nothing like the other 1954 pieces).

I would place both the arrowhead shaped patch (I believe you’ve shared it in previous blog posts) and neckerchief in the same year. Either both were used for the 1953 meeting (very unlikely….because it leaves us with the no items being produced for the 1955 event) or both for the 1955 conclave (by deduction, it is more likely that either nothing or a much smaller production run was produced for the 1953 planning meeting….perhaps leaving us with the possibility that there are still 1953 items to discover)
My 2 cents-
-Ray

See the original post for the full writeup.

This is still a need of mine, does anyone have either the patch available for trade or sale?

[auction-affiliate]



—————–

But just because someone in Team A makes an inadvertent excel error does not mean that everything Team B believes is true. To suggest otherwise would be a truly egregious mistake.
…Greg Mankiw

Share