Thanx. That explains it a bit better. It seemed odd that none of the headers matched and appeared as if the name was continually changing. JK David Bennett wrote: > Gegenseitigen means mutual. It appears in the title only for the > first notice, but it appears in the text for all. All three articles > refer to the same fire insurance company. The first notice on 1 > September 1871, announces a meeting to be held on 6 October to elect > directors and conduct other important business. The second notice by > John Klein, President, on 2 Dec. 1871, announces a meeting on 18 Dec. > to discuss (take delivery of?) insurance policies. The third notice > on 2 Sept. 1872 announces the annual meeting on 7 Oct. 1872 to elect > three directors to replace three who are retiring. > > > On May 29, 2009, at 7:06 PM, JK wrote: > >> The one may say so but the three don't all use the same phrase. >> >> You can't be saying that the other two mean exactly the same thing >> >> Or are you? >> >> [email protected] wrote: >>> In a message dated 5/29/2009 2:35:31 PM Central Daylight Time, >>> [email protected] writes: >>> >>> >>>> The ads don't appear to all support this name >>> "Feuerversicherung Gesellschaft von South Easthope" is "(Mutual) Fire >>> Insurance of South Easthope". >>> >>> They clearly DO support the name, the group, and the intent. >>> >>> >>> >>> ************** >>> We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’ >>> diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. >>> (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/ >>> 355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml >>> cntnew00000007) >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] >>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >>> the body of the message >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Have never seen anyone do a photo comparison on the list before so this may be a first. It should pertain to anyone who is trying to verify old photographs to a newer version of the same person I've posted 2 photos at http://newhamburg.org/ads/1krug.html They appear to be the same person. There are many similarities and I'm not interested in a vote of whether members think they are the same person. My problem arises in the fact that I believe the younger version has a much larger skull. It appears to expand while the older version appears to narrow. And I don't think skulls shrink with age. The second problem I have is I don't believe the photographer whose stamp is on the early picture was around anywhere near that time. But, it could be explained by the picture being a reprint a number of years later though. I'm looking for anyone who may have some expertise in doing comparisons. I know that ears are as distinct as fingerprints and one ear seems very close but I'm not convinced on the other. The eyes, square jaw, and nose could be genetic. The older picture appears to have a cleft where the younger one doesn't. This could be lighting or even an accident later in life. Also, the guy had 4 sons. At least one should look like him. As I said, no voting. Just constructive comments. Maybe others will get some help from the intercourse JK