Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 3319242, member: 19165&quot;]Ah, I see where you are coming from. The 1965 UCAM is 0.5% of the population; the 1966 UCAM is 0.95%; the 1967 UCAM is 2.9%. So yes, the date does matter. I wouldn&#039;t say 1965 is in &quot;a league of it&#039;s own&quot;, but it is marginally scarcer than the 1967. </p><p><br /></p><p>I was looking at it from an overall perspective (similar to the way I look at prooflikes from a type-set perspective - sure there are quite a few 1949S Franklin PL&#039;s.... but compared to the overall population of Franklins, they are quite rare).[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in