Deliberate mistakes

1. There are three Mike's on the cover???

2. There is no such thing as the Hanson museum - it is called the Anson museum???

3. Man only appears to have one hand and he has a missing thumb???

4. No one is telling us what lathe it actually is???

5. There is an offending purple/blue plastic handled screwdriver on the chip tray???

Hi, maybe the photo wasn't actually taken at a club gala, even though Mike Smith may have demonstrated it at one.

Regards Nick.

That overly large anvil gives away that its a poor photoshop job as the workshop background photo does not quite fit the scale of Mike on his lathe, also floor between his legs has not been altered to the more yellow "sawdust" look.

J

It never occurred to me that this pic was supposed to be an historical display. I thought it was just a pic of some old guy in his workshop, latheing away on his old lathe.

There are anvils that big too. Mostly in 'Merka though.

As for suggestions he should not be wearing a watch while latheing, I have never seen anyone take their watch off to use the lathe. Rings maybe, but never a watch. From experience of catching my watch on various (stationary) bolts etc over the years, the pins give way with very little effort so not likely to pull one's hand into moving machinery.

Regarding the wearing of watches, if the chain does get caught and pulls the watch from your waistcoat pocket the worst thing that can happen is the button hole will give way. I don't know why it should affect your hands?

;0)

Martin

Pocket Watches HaHa, what next a Top Hat and Tailcoat?

A Pocket Watch getting tugged out of a pocket could flail round on the end of it's chain, very nasty!

Well obviously you wouldn't be wearing a tail coat at work, that would be silly.

Martin

Come on Bubble, it's about time you put us out of our misery

J

Too late, I've burnt the entire stock...

Neil

I would agree that the anvil is ridiculously over sized. It's definitely anchoring the room down.

Michael W

Too much spliffing?

Neil, PLEASE post the darned photo so the rest of us can see what in tarnation all the fuss is about!!!

Pete

.

You should already have the magazine, Pete

MichaelG.

Well, I don't subscribe on this side of the pond. Never looked into getting UK publications over here.

Pete

**LINK**

...  that wasn't too hard to find 

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 13/05/2016 19:44:45

I believe the apostrophe should be after the s, so Mike Checkley's should be written Mike Checkleys'. Of more concern to me is why I don't appear to have received my copy of this particular magazine yet!

Martin.

Don't see why. Mike Checkley is singular. It's the arbors that are plural.

Until yesterday or the day before, it was visible at the top of this (and every other) page on the forum. If you clicked on it, you got it full size. They have now moved on to showing issue 242 front cover.

Despite 2 pages of posts about it, I still have no clue what the fuss is about. Just some silly wind-up?

The issue is not related to the plurality of the arbors, the apostrophe in the name indicates possesion of the object, in this case the arbors belong to Mike so the apostrophe and s is correctly placed in this instance.

.

... So I posted a link to an archived image, especially for Pete's benefit.

MichaelG.