truly fab pet
& i say that as one who just watched his fierce old tomcat expire
but it is eloquent testimony to what a long way we have come baby
even just this week
that your newfound rocks dated 1680 & 1672 stand to cop only a silver & a
bronze medal respectively in the dated category
last week i for one still imagined there were no dated boundary rocks in
the world before 1791
nor even any monumental rubble older than 1720
& there still doesnt appear to be anything surviving around here at least
from before then
btw i do think the munster rock will hold up at 1659
& should therefore maintain its claims on all the gold
because even tho your sources indicate it was commissioned unilaterally
it still does carry all 3 coats of arms
& i think its only known rival in any category may be the breintenstein
another remarkable thing about all 3 of your presumptive medalists
until next week perhaps when we might find older ones
tho i dare again to doubt it
is how they already begin to crowd up against the treaty of westphalia &
the 30 years war
which are widely thought to mark the birth of modern boundary development
tho we know the pyrenees were already cranking centuries before that
only to have since lost all their original teeth
& the idea of a seignorial tp
well that is too cool
it seems only the day before yesterday we reached for multi imperial
then almost immediately multi regal
& now multi seignorial
all in a single weeks play
what next
& yes i certainly agree it is a nice stone
with a fascinating doodle on it that is really beyond compare
also please never hesitate to double post if in doubt
especially about stuff as fine as this
because i am sure no one would want to miss a beat
now that you & therefore we are really rocking
m
>
>FAB = Franz Anton Berka, one of the three lords whose seigneuries met
>at the tripoint that you can see at:
><http://www.luzicke-hory.cz/tourist8.html#Utri>
>http://www.luzicke-hory.cz/tourist8.html#Utri .
>At least that's what I think.
>I don't know whether this seigniorial tripoint stone is still on an
>international (czde) border, but it might well be. Anyway, it's a
>nice stone, isn't it? It is from 1680. In the vicinity of it, it says
>here, there are some other stones with similar age, but most are
>newer ones, from 1723. Which I happen to find very old, too....
>
>BTW: I posted this earlier, but apparently it didn't arrive. If it's
>still going to with a delay, please forgive the doubling.
>
>Peter S.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=148462.1016293.2712017.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=18
>9183/?http://insurance.yahoo.com/ target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
>Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
>of Service.