Reconditioning my Super 400 CES - PART II

[Hannu]

Some forum members may remember when I posted part one of this topic about half a year ago, fall 2012. Now, after waiting for the replacement pickguard, my 1964 Super 400 CES is in wonderful shape.

The only thing wrong with this guitar that I bought in 1988 was the missing pickguard, but I was also worried about fret wear, worn tuners and some clouding of the nitro finish.

The Gibson Repairs department in Nashville referred me to Tony Dudzik, who makes pickguards for these old Gibsons. We decided to go for the 1964-1965 spec pickguard, though it is possible that this guitar may have had the "marble" style one. We had the pattern of the pickguard available, but it does not help much since all Super 400's are slightly different. My pickups are 2 mm futher apart than those of previous S400 that had a pickguard made. We send a mock-up pickguard a few times between Ohio and Ontario but eventually got the holes etc. to match.

Everything else was easier than I thought. The crackling pots started working better and better as I started to use them even if not needed. Much of the "wear" that I was worried about turned out to be dirt or oxidization of the hardware. The guitar was cleaned professionally by Joe Agnello of Georgina Music, he also attached the pickguard with its hardware.

When I got this guitar 25 years ago, I used Martin Guitar Polish very generously and that was a big mistake. The guitar had layers of guitar polish which had become softer over the years, then got transferred to the fretboard and elsewhere and petrified to a hard layer. The frets looked much more worn than they actually were, the tuners started working fine after the cleaning. Now the ebony of the fretboard is ebony again, and there is no scalloping between the frets. The tuners are fine. The gold plating of the tailpiece is almost 100%, the pickups have some wear. The Kluson tuners have lost most of their plating, or, they are brass and have faded.

I asked for advice from several sources before I had anything done to the guitar, and the general advice was to do as little as possible, let the guitar show its age, don't try to hide the fact that the pickguard is new ( which is very hard to tell by the way).

So, we did nothing to the electronics, pickups. We tried if the truss rod still turns, but didn't make any changes to the setup. This guitar seems to always hold its neck straight and action low and clear for 0.011 or 0.0.12 stings. I have Pyramid 0.011 flatwounds on it, also tried with D'Addario Round Wound .012's. Both worked well, the rounds give a loud majestic sound, almost like an old Martin flattop. The Pyramid Flats sound a little more quiet, elegant and jazzy. I now have two amps for the guitar, my old Roland JC-120 which also was reconditioned, and a brand new Wholetone WT-80, which with its 15 inch speaker seems to be the first amp that really produces the lower register of the guitar.

Thank you for all on this forum who gave me good advice!

Hannu

[Jabberwocky]

Thanks for sharing, Hannu. That's so beautiful I could almost cry.

 

Enjoy her in good health. I think you did well.

 

(How about showing the back of the beauty?)

[JimR56]

Hannu, there are several things about your guitar that puzzle me. I'd like to help you if possible, and I think I can offer some info, but I would really need to see more photos. Can you please post photos of:

 

the headstock, close up

the back of the neck and headstock

the label

 

Any additional photos would be great. It's a beautiful guitar, so I hope you won't mind showing it off with more photos. :)

[Hannu]

Hannu, there are several things about your guitar that puzzle me. I'd like to help you if possible, and I think I can offer some info, but I would really need to see more photos. Can you please post photos of:

 

the headstock, close up

the back of the neck and headstock

the label

 

Any additional photos would be great. It's a beautiful guitar, so I hope you won't mind showing it off with more photos. :)

 

Jim, the camera I am using is not very good for this type of work, the flash keeps flashing and the colors go wrong. Also, the close ups are wide angle, which distorts proportions. I should actually get use of a manual SLR camera and document this guitar better.

Here are more shots:

[bobouz]

When I got this guitar 25 years ago, I used Martin Guitar Polish very generously and that was a big mistake.

I believe around 2001, Martin's polish was found to have silicone in it.

If I remember correctly, it was after they had gone to a new manufacturer.

Eventually the problem was discovered & corrected.

[JimR56]

Hannu, thanks for providing the extra photos. I hope this won't shock or disappoint you too much (it's still a nice guitar), but your Super 400 was not made in 1964. The previous owner misled you and/or the store you bought it from. I actually knew the moment I saw your initial photo that the guitar was made later, but I wanted to see a few things (headstock, label, etc) more clearly.

 

Here is a list of things to consider:

 

1. The headstock shape is wrong for the 1960's. It conforms to the shape and design that was used in the 1970's.

2. The cutaway shape is also wrong for a 60's venetian cut. Yours also conforms to the 70's type.

3. Your bridge base (ebony with pearl inlays) is the type that first appeared on Super 400's in 1973-74.

4. Your tailpiece lacks the hole for the "varitone" control. This tailpiece design appeared in 1975.

5. Your vol/tone knobs are not correct for 1964.

6. Perhaps most troubling of all, there appears to be a Norlin label under the orange label in your guitar.

 

Here is a headstock comparison (1960's / 1970's):

 

Note the subtle difference in the shape of the "center dip" at the top of the headstock; and also the difference in spacing between the vertical pieces of pearl in the split diamond inlay. Your guitar has a 70's headstock.

 

Here is a cutaway comparison (1969 / 1970's): The difference is subtle, but it's there if you compare closely. This is mentioned by Tom Van Hoose in his book.

 

Again, I hope this isn't too big a shock, but this sort of thing happens in the guitar world. She's still a beauty.

[Hannu]

Hannu, thanks for providing the extra photos. I hope this won't shock or disappoint you too much (it's still a nice guitar), but your Super 400 was not made in 1964. The previous owner misled you and/or the store you bought it from. I actually knew the moment I saw your initial photo that the guitar was made later, but I wanted to see a few things (headstock, label, etc) more clearly.

 

 

Jim,

Thank you for your expertise, this is no shock at all, I value the guitar more as a playing instrument rather than for its vintage origin. Amazing the things you pointed out, I would never have discovered the differences.

I think the dating may have gone wrong because it was done by the serial number. The guitar was sold to me 1988 on consignment by a reputable Toronto music store, and I don't believe that the original owner made any claim about its vintage.

All that was known about the original owner that he had "played it for a very long time as a guitarist of a Toronto based big band". The guitar looked rather old in 1988, but of course 13 years or so would be enough for the bindings start getting yellowish etc.

The store checked the serial from a Gibson book, and came up with 1964. Later on I got a Gibson book myself, and also found the serial dating it back to 1964, no other check has ever been done.

What is the deal with the serial number (205810)? Can it not be used to date any Gibson at all? And if not, is there any other way to accurately find the year?

In your opinion, are we now somewhere around 1973-1975?

Hannu

[stein]

That is what I call an AMAZING eye- I like to think I have one, but I had to really study the photo's to tell the differences, and even then, I don't think I would be able to be sure if I seen another on it's own.

 

The label is a mystery. How and why is it there? I'm trying to remember, '88, I think that was a time when archtops were kinda high in price, and a '64 would have brought more money than a 70's. So I could see someone sticking a new label on it for that purpose. But why not hide the one under it? I would think if someone wanted to fool someone on purpose, they would definitely be more careful.

 

So, I wonder if the new label came about perhaps by Gibson?

 

I don't know if it matters, but perhaps this guitar has a little more history to it.

[JimR56]

Jim,

Thank you for your expertise, this is no shock at all, I value the guitar more as a playing instrument rather than for its vintage origin. Amazing the things you pointed out, I would never have discovered the differences.

 

You're very welcome, and I'm just relieved that you're not upset at me for telling you. :) Your attitude is very healthy, by the way. Enjoying the guitar as a musical tool is what it's all about, and like I said, it's still a beautiful guitar.

 

I think the dating may have gone wrong because it was done by the serial number. The guitar was sold to me 1988 on consignment by a reputable Toronto music store, and I don't believe that the original owner made any claim about its vintage.

All that was known about the original owner that he had "played it for a very long time as a guitarist of a Toronto based big band". The guitar looked rather old in 1988, but of course 13 years or so would be enough for the bindings start getting yellowish etc.

The store checked the serial from a Gibson book, and came up with 1964. Later on I got a Gibson book myself, and also found the serial dating it back to 1964, no other check has ever been done.

What is the deal with the serial number (205810)? Can it not be used to date any Gibson at all? And if not, is there any other way to accurately find the year?

In your opinion, are we now somewhere around 1973-1975?

Hannu

First of all, your serial number would indicate 1964, if it was legit. The problem is, it doesn't appear to be legit. Somebody seems to have pasted that label in at a later date. The corner of another label (underneath the orange one) is visible at the upper left. It appears to be the corner of a rectangular label- a Norlin label, which would be correct for a 1970's instrument. It's surprising that this corner was left visible, especially if someone was trying to be deceitful (the usual reason for pasting an orange label into a guitar that was made later). I suppose that the orange label could be carefully removed by someone expert in dealing with paper... I don't know.

 

Is there no serial number on the back of the headstock?

 

Based on the headstock and the cutaway shape (and the bridge and tailpiece), my present guess is that we're looking at perhaps a 1975 to 1977 example here.

[JimR56]

That is what I call an AMAZING eye- I like to think I have one, but I had to really study the photo's to tell the differences, and even then, I don't think I would be able to be sure if I seen another on it's own.

 

I've always had this thing about subtle differences in the shapes of guitar bodies, headstocks, etc. I didn't study it in order to try to become an expert, I just have this obsession with it. I guess it stems from being a purist. I don't like it when Gibson makes changes to classic designs.

 

The label is a mystery. How and why is it there? I'm trying to remember, '88, I think that was a time when archtops were kinda high in price, and a '64 would have brought more money than a 70's. So I could see someone sticking a new label on it for that purpose. But why not hide the one under it? I would think if someone wanted to fool someone on purpose, they would definitely be more careful.

That's what really puzzles me too. I also don't get the "DMW" at the top of the label.

[stein]

According to one book (a Les Paul book- it's close), the seriel number here that indicates 64-65 could also indicate 73-75.

 

I still kinda wonder about the label- if someone wanted to "forge", why leave a corner to see?

 

Anyway, if you REALLY want to know more, I think getting to the pot codes would tell something. At least you have the decade. But also, if they read anything different than the seriel number might indicate, it could tell a little more of the history of this particular guitar as well.

[JimR56]

According to one book (a Les Paul book- it's close), the seriel number here that indicates 64-65 could also indicate 73-75.

Except that Gibson wasn't using the orange labels at that time. They went to the Norlin label circa 1971.

 

Also, there should be a serial number on the back of the headstock (they used a decal rather than an impressed stamp at that time). If it's gone, this is another red flag, I would think.

[stein]

Except that Gibson wasn't using the orange labels at that time. They went to the Norlin label circa 1971.

 

Also, there should be a serial number on the back of the headstock (they used a decal rather than an impressed stamp at that time). If it's gone, this is another red flag, I would think.

I'm thinking that considering the label wasn't used nafariously, that if it wasn't, the REAL seriel number would have been tranfered from the old label to the new one.

 

Still wondering how and why the label got here- an attepmt to get more money making a 70's into a 60's? Or, was the guitar restored/fixed/worked on at some point? I can see either possibility.

 

One thing I have a little trouble with, is that as EASY as it might have been to get an orange label to make a guitar that seems like a legitimate '64, who would be STUPID enough to leave the old label underneath visible? That would practically give it away.

 

On the other hand, if there is a legitimate reason to "re-label" it, be from fading numbers, or torn label, or whatever, what would be the "proper" way to do it in, say, '88? Perhaps a re-fin made it nessesary to preserve the seriel#?

 

I just guessing, of corse, but what it LOOKS like to me is a label stuck on top of another label not to hide, but to preserve info.

[Hannu]

I'm thinking that considering the label wasn't used nafariously, that if it wasn't, the REAL seriel number would have been tranfered from the old label to the new one.

 

Still wondering how and why the label got here- an attepmt to get more money making a 70's into a 60's? Or, was the guitar restored/fixed/worked on at some point? I can see either possibility.

 

One thing I have a little trouble with, is that as EASY as it might have been to get an orange label to make a guitar that seems like a legitimate '64, who would be STUPID enough to leave the old label underneath visible? That would practically give it away.

 

On the other hand, if there is a legitimate reason to "re-label" it, be from fading numbers, or torn label, or whatever, what would be the "proper" way to do it in, say, '88? Perhaps a re-fin made it nessesary to preserve the seriel#?

 

I just guessing, of corse, but what it LOOKS like to me is a label stuck on top of another label not to hide, but to preserve info.

 

The plot thickens ... First, the serial number stamped in the headstock is same as the one on the red label. Also, it is definately stamped into the wood so it would have been difficult to modify with the "made in USA". The red (orange) label has become loose on the sides. The square label is also loose. This square label does not look like any kind of printing paper, it is brown, about the same color as the interior of the guitar. It just comes to mind that it is a piece of a dehumidifying bag that fell in there from the guitar case, or something that used when the guitar was cleaned. I don't remember seing it before, and I have looked in there many times over the years.

The red (orange?) label does not look photocopied, it definately looks printed. The notes are made with what looks like two different pens or pencils.

If the identity was forged, it would have done a lot of work for not much gain. The original owner who brought the guitar to the shop to be sold on consignment, wanted fair price because he had retired from the band, and the guitar had served him well. That's what the salesman told me. He wanted $2000 for it, which I believe wasn't much at a time when collectibles were very expensive. I walked by the store minutes after it was brought in, saw the people hang a Super 400 up on the vintage row of guitars. I went in and bought it after a 5 minute test, they said it was the shortest lived inventory they ever had. It was an easy decision for me, the guitar spoke for itself when it plugged into that Fender Twin.

I will try to come with an instrument to see if I can pull out that piece of paper out of there, maybe that will reveal something.

 

Hannu

[JimR56]

Hannu, I would not try to remove the paper under the orange label. I still think it appears to be the corner of a Norlin label. Here is what they look like:

 

 

 

It appears to be "aged" at the corner, but the small dark spot you see where it emerges right at the edge of your orange label looks like the corner of the dark triangular field in which the "Gibson Inc." lettering appears.

[JimR56]

If the serial number on the back of the head is not a decal, but stamped, this would suggest (along with the fact that you have a match with the number on the label) that the number itself is legit, and the guitar may date slightly earlier ('73 to '75-ish). It still isn't clear to me why an orange label was used (and possibly placed over a Norlin label), but if it was done by Gibson, then that is a bit of a relief.

[stein]

The plot thickens ... First, the serial number stamped in the headstock is same as the one on the red label. Also, it is definately stamped into the wood so it would have been difficult to modify with the "made in USA". The red (orange) label has become loose on the sides. The square label is also loose. This square label does not look like any kind of printing paper, it is brown, about the same color as the interior of the guitar. It just comes to mind that it is a piece of a dehumidifying bag that fell in there from the guitar case, or something that used when the guitar was cleaned. I don't remember seing it before, and I have looked in there many times over the years.

The red (orange?) label does not look photocopied, it definately looks printed. The notes are made with what looks like two different pens or pencils.

If the identity was forged, it would have done a lot of work for not much gain. The original owner who brought the guitar to the shop to be sold on consignment, wanted fair price because he had retired from the band, and the guitar had served him well. That's what the salesman told me. He wanted $2000 for it, which I believe wasn't much at a time when collectibles were very expensive. I walked by the store minutes after it was brought in, saw the people hang a Super 400 up on the vintage row of guitars. I went in and bought it after a 5 minute test, they said it was the shortest lived inventory they ever had. It was an easy decision for me, the guitar spoke for itself when it plugged into that Fender Twin.

I will try to come with an instrument to see if I can pull out that piece of paper out of there, maybe that will reveal something.

 

Hannu

From the photo of the label you provided, I can definitely see the printing/texture of a Norlin label. I can't really link all that well, but google "Gibson label" images and you'll see it.

 

What little I know (and it ain't all that much), is that around that time, ('88), labels weren't all that big of a deal. You could buy one if you knew where to go, a label just like that. If you needed a label from Gibson, I don't know what they would have sent, and I don't know that they would have minded, or anyone would have cried out, if a so-called "nos" or whatever Gibson label was used that seemed to be floating around everywhere.

 

$2000 bucks in '88? That sounds like a good price for a 70's Super-4hundy for about that time. Also sounds like a good price for an altered, "non-collectable" 60's. It sounds like the dealer had no need, nor any reason, to concern himself too much with getting down to exactly what year it was. Sounds like you got a good price on it, and he didn't have the time nor desire or need to be certain of the year.

[JimR56]

Hannu, here is a 1975 model that was sold by Elderly Instruments: http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/40U-4483.htm

 

Note how closely the rear view of this example resembles the your guitar:

 

... and note how the top finish in particular matches the color of the back, while yours looks different:

 

You can also see what the original vol/tone knobs looked like, as well as the pickguard (I like your new one better anyway). I think it is possible that the top was refinished on your guitar. One possibility is that the old pickguard decomposed (this is a common thing, where they break down chemically and release a nasty gas that can cause oxidation of metal plating) and damaged the original finish of your guitar. It might also explain some of the oxidation on metal parts that you described earlier.

[Hannu]

Hannu, here is a 1975 model that was sold by Elderly Instruments: http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/40U-4483.htm

Note how closely the rear view of this example resembles the your guitar:

... and note how the top finish in particular matches the color of the back, while yours looks different:

You can also see what the original vol/tone knobs looked like, as well as the pickguard (I like your new one better anyway). I think it is possible that the top was refinished on your guitar. One possibility is that the old pickguard decomposed (this is a common thing, where they break down chemically and release a nasty gas that can cause oxidation of metal plating) and damaged the original finish of your guitar. It might also explain some of the oxidation on metal parts that you described earlier.

 

I took yet another look at the finish of the top and back. In my earlier pics they look different because one pic is taken with flash, the other under natural light. Looking at it now I could not tell any difference other than the top is spruce, the back maple. The guitar above appears to have near white bindings, whereas mine were aged yellowish already in 1988. At that time I had a 15 year old Les Paul (1972) and the S-400 looked older than the Les Paul already then. The top looked like it had years of playing on it, very fine hairline pick marks by the hundreds on the lower side. If it was refinished, it must have been done really well, the color and detail in the "burst" is consistent from the back to the back binding, the side, to the top binding, then the top itself. Maybe the refinish was done very early, which would also explain the "shade" that was under the bridge.

And of course it does not help that I kept the guitar for 25 years in a sunny room, with the back looking into a dark corner ...

Of all Gibson guitars that I have had, 2 LP's, 2 SG's, one ES, all of them 60's and 70's models, this one felt the oldest and most played already then. Of course, that is just a players "feel" kind of thing.

So, the puzzle continues ... It would be nice to get the story of this guitar figured out. I don't plan ever to sell it, but would be nice to pass it to the next generation with clear identity.

I tried to research for the Gibson label codes, maybe decoding the DMW would explain something.

The mysteries remain: why a 1964 serial number in headstock and label? Why a Norlin 70's label under the orange label?

Let's look at it from the sellers point of view worst case scenario. You have a broken 1977 S-400. You fix it in order to sell it as a 1964, figure out the serial numbers, have a luthier change the veneer of the back of the headstock, forge the serial of the headstock, obtain somehow an orange label, forge it, and glue it on top of the 70's Norlin label. Then use some chemical to age the bindings, make it look more worn. Then take it to be sold as a '64 and ask $2000. Huge risk, the shop is a large music store, they could have had somebody expert to inspect it right away, and called the police.

Yet, the person could have brought it in as it was, with its original Norlin labels and serials, maybe a document of repairs if any were done. Still could have asked $2000 for it. All solid carved top Gibsons, S-400's and L5's were much more expensive than that -88, new or used.

 

I'll take some new photos, this time with a better camera, maybe outside if we get a cloudy day.

Thanks for your help again,

Hannu

[JimR56]

Perhaps it was just the differing photo quality that caused me to wonder about a refinned top, Hannu. If you're able to take better photos, that might help to clarify, but from your description, it sounds like there was no refin.

 

A couple of points:

1. The serial numbering system at Gibson was quite messed up back in those days. They re-used numbers, so a number that is correct for 1964 was also correct for 1973 or whenever it was re-used. The difference in this case is that yours has an orange label, which would ordinarily suggest that the number was put on the guitar in 1964. Since that's clearly not the case here, the question becomes why your guitar has an orange label when the numbers in and on your guitar apparently indicate a 1973-75 date.

 

2. Binding can age very differently on two guitars from the same year. In this case, your guitar was apparently used for years by a professional player, so the guitar was probably exposed to more "trauma" (sunlight, cigarette smoke, etc etc), which could have caused it to yellow faster than your Les Paul (or some other guitar from the same year that was more "sheltered").

[L5Larry]

What are the potentiometer codes?

[stein]

I might check the pots, the pups, see if they might give a clue of something.

 

The seriel# DOES match and make sense for 73-75, no? It seems the features match that number, don't they?

 

So, therefore, the only thing I see "odd" about the guitar is the label. But hearing the story of it being sold in '88 for 2k, I see no reason why a person might want to pass a '64 for a '73- not for 2k. I think the dealer, if he thought it was a '73, he would have said it was. He would have no reason to lie for 2k.

 

Basically, I see no funny business involving the label, and trying to pass a '73-'75 for a 60's model. Not for the TYPE of label, anyway. I think whoever added the label chose whatever label, and it happened to be that one.

 

So, why ADD a label?

 

Just a guess, but maybe it was origonally an S-400, or S-400C, and the pups were added. It might explain a new label, if different info wanted to be on it. It might explain why the PG is missing, if it wasn't worked over to accept the pups, or was messed up doing so. As for the orange label instead of the Norlin label, an easy explanation was it was easier to get.

 

I don't know how that could be proven, unless some evidence is found on the guitar that shows they weren't added at the factory, or added later.

 

Pot codes or pups made later than the seriel# would suggest, they could have been replaced, but it might suggest they were added to an accoustic. If the holes for the pups were done without a jig, or look slightly butchered, that might prove they were added by someone other than Gibby (who for sure would have templates and jigs).

 

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try and take the label off, as we might know it isn't origonal anyway, but being able to read something off the label underneath seems doubtful.

[bobouz]

Ah yes, nothing like a good guitar mystery.

 

Sorry if it's been mentioned & I missed it,

but one of the quick tell tale signs is the

lack of a dot on the headstock logo's "i".

 

At least through '69, the Super 400

had a dot on the "i" from what I've seen.

 

The Heritage & Dove acoustics

I owned from the early '70s

also lacked the dot on the "i".

[daveg]

According to Van Hoose the Volute was added in '74/'75 until around 1980 so that gives a small clue?

 

DG

[Hannu]

Perhaps it was just the differing photo quality that caused me to wonder about a refinned top, Hannu. If you're able to take better photos, that might help to clarify, but from your description, it sounds like there was no refin.

 

A couple of points:

1. The serial numbering system at Gibson was quite messed up back in those days. They re-used numbers, so a number that is correct for 1964 was also correct for 1973 or whenever it was re-used. The difference in this case is that yours has an orange label, which would ordinarily suggest that the number was put on the guitar in 1964. Since that's clearly not the case here, the question becomes why your guitar has an orange label when the numbers in and on your guitar apparently indicate a 1973-75 date.

 

2. Binding can age very differently on two guitars from the same year. In this case, your guitar was apparently used for years by a professional player, so the guitar was probably exposed to more "trauma" (sunlight, cigarette smoke, etc etc), which could have caused it to yellow faster than your Les Paul (or some other guitar from the same year that was more "sheltered").

 

Confirming that the lower label is a Norlin label. I was able to lift the loose end of the orange label and see the corner of the Norlin label. The orange label is almost ready to fall off, only attached on one side. Also, I researched the serial numbers again from two sources, both show the 200 000 being used -64 and reused -73. There is an explanation for this in one of the old documents. Even though new serial ranges were issued, some people at the Kalamazoo factory continued to use the 60's six digit numbers for no other reason that's what they had been doing for a long time. This happened again 1977-78 when a number of random 60's serials were used again.

 

1973 would make sense. The guitar would have been 15 years old at the time when I laid my hands on it. So to me at that time it was old enough to look, feel and sound old, more so than a 10 year old guitar, which I think I would have noticed. The refinish does not look likely, or, if it was done, maybe the whole body was refinished. I looked at it with a powerful magnifying glass in all places. The color of the darker part of the burst is absolutely identical. The way how the nitro finish joins the bindings is identical on top, sides and bottom.

 

Still weird, why would anybody try to "age" a guitar by 9-10 years by adding an older style label in such a clumsy way. To deceive, would you first removed the Norlin label, the glue the orange one in there properly. Even if it was a hasty job, it would have been easy to drop the larger orange label to cover all of the Norlin label ?

 

I am thinking now about how to get the orange label out of there without damaging the Norlin label. If that was gone, the guitar would be the way it should have been all along, a 1973 Norlin era Super 400 CES.

 

I will have more pictures, the upload feature of the forum tells me that I have used my 500k to upload. I'll figure out how to embed the pics to the HTML like others seem to be doing.

Hannu