Hmmm,
I'm seriously wondering what the point of this forum is.
You're obviously somewhat teed off Emmi - so am I. And, for once, I am going to make that statement.
Frankly, when threads get like this I totally loose interest, since people's feelings seem to be more important than the subject at hand. No, you didn't give the pat no 1289 as an attribution. No imputation to you was meant - however you wish to take my observations. Maybe I should have used the word
illustrations, instead of
'attributions', which would have avoided your obvious sensibilities.
This particularly thread seems to have changed from being a question about whether or not something may, or may not be, Whitefrairs, into another about
having acquired an unwelcome example of modern deceptive repro, produced with fraudulent intent
This was not made obvious at the outset, however I don't think that going through all the
possible alternatives that are similar out there serves any particular purpose.
I, and my library, bow out of this particular thread before anything more untoward is written. Nigel