PINBALL EXPO '92 (CONTINUED)
"THE DATA COLLECTORS - PINBALL'S TRUE HISTORIANS" SEMINAR
By Russ Jensen
Last time you might recall, when I described the many
attractions at Pinball Expo '92, I said that I would postpone my
description of the seminar I was a part of. I said that was
because it's description would be too long and would be "out of
balance" with the rest of the article.
Now some of you may think that the reason the description of
our seminar was longer than that of the other events was because
I took part in it. Well, in a way, you would be right, but not
for the reason you might think. So before beginning the
description of our seminar let me explain what caused this
situation. To do that I will have to briefly explain how I cover
the Expo seminars in general.
Whenever I go to an Expo I always bring with me a standard
stenographer's notebook and a portable audio cassette recorder.
During each seminar I use the notebook to take notes, as quickly
as possible, also recording the entire session on tape at the
Now, since it's impossible to write down everything that's
being said (even though I use a lot of abbreviations, and
'keywords' to remind me what the main points of the talk were)
the result usually is that my notes tend to capture most of the
important points being discussed, leaving out many of the lesser
details. Thus a sort of 'filtering' of the discussion tends to
Since I write my article primarily from these notes, the
final product usually covers the main points of each talk, rather
than providing a detailed point-by-point "transcript", thus
resulting in a reasonable length description of each seminar.
If, however, I miss a main point in my notes due to the
discussion getting too 'lively', I simply make a notation "CK
TAPE" in my notes and use the tape later to help recreate that
portion of the talk in the finished article.
In the case of the seminar described below I, of course, was
up on stage and certainly could not take any written notes at
all. I therefore had to rely solely on the tape recording when
recreating the seminar in written words. In order to do this, at
the time I began to write the description of our talk, I played
the tape and made a "detained outline" for the article while
listening to it.
Now some of you might ask the question, why didn't I just
let the tape run (just as if I was listening to the seminar at
the Expo) and take the same kind of notes I did for the other
seminars, resulting in the 'filtering' effect I mentioned
earlier? Well, my answer to that is when I'm listening to a tape
and come to a place where my note taking can't keep up with the
discussion I tend to stop the tape, over which I have control,
something I cannot do during a live discussion.
The result of all this is that when I take notes (or make an
outline) from a tape which I can stop at will, the resulting
article tends to cover almost everything that was said, rather
than leaving out some of the less important details.
A similar situation, by the way, occurs during my describing
of Expo banquet speeches. That is because that is the one time
during an Expo I allow myself the luxury of just relaxing, taping
the talk only, and describing the speech in my article by making
a detailed outline directly from the tape.
Well, now that you understand why my coverage of this
seminar is disproportionately longer than my descriptions of the
other Pinball Expo '92 seminars that I presented last time, I
will go ahead and describe our talk.
The above discussion may have been somewhat boring to some,
but I hope that others of you might enjoy a little insight into
what goes on "behind the scenes" during preparation of my written
coverages of the Pinball Expos.
When it was time for our seminar to start Rob Berk got up
and introduced the panel on which I was to participate, which was
titled "The Data Collectors - Pinball's True Historians". He
then introduced Dave Marston, the panel's moderator.
Dave began by saying that he was there to represent his
quarter century in the hobby. He said that he had done some
writing (referencing his series of articles "Visual Dictionary of
Pinball Parts"), and then mentioned his participation in a
computer information network known as "Internet" on which there
was much pinball activity.
After asking for a show of hands of who in the audience was
on Internet (there were several users attending), he told of him
helping organize a pinball get-together known as "The New England
Dave then started talking about our panel, beginning by
telling the audience that some of us did not usually go in front
of audiences, but were "dedicated searchers for information". He
then said that he would have liked to have pinball historians Rob
Hawkins and Don Mueting (who had recently published their
"Pinball Collector's Resource" reference book) there, but that
they were upholding their record of never attending an Expo.
At this point Dave introduced panelist Mike Pacak, whom he
said was a collector of games (especially Ballys), as well as
schematics, and of course pinball advertising flyers. He then
said that Mike has been trying to publish an "encyclopedia" of
pinball flyers, asking Mike how that project was going?
Mike began by saying that an earlier arrangement for
publishing this, in connection with coin-op publisher Dan Meade,
had fallen through. He then said such a publication would be
quite expensive, especially if it were done the way most
collectors would like to see it.
Mike continued, saying that what he envisioned was a book
showing flyers for almost all pingames from 1947 forward, which
he said could be as many as 1200 pages! He then said that it
could be done in several volumes, either divided by manufacturers
or by dates. He ended by saying that he has almost enough flyers
to do it (plus Billboard magazines from 1939 through 1972) but
that the big problem is making a suitable arrangement with a
publisher or printer.
Dave Marston then made the comment that Steve Young and
Gordon Hasse had solicited interest from collectors in a similar
project several years ago, but had not found enough interest. He
said since that time the number of collectors had grown and maybe
now the interest in such a project would be greater.
At that point Dave introduced my friend, and fellow
panelist, Sam Harvey, saying that he was well known for gathering
information on pingames. He then commented that Sam had brought
his database (a large notebook containing his pinball research
information) with him.
Dave then commented that a "database" did not necessarily
need to be on a computer. He then remarked that Mike's large
collection of machines (as well as his flyer collection) could
even broadly be considered as a sort of "database", although
searching through a warehouse of machines to gather information
he said was quite time consuming.
Dave next introduced "yours truly" telling of my book
("Pinball Troubleshooting Guide"), my numerous articles on pins
and pinball history over the years, and my participation in the
preparation of several pinball lists, including the
Hawkins/Mueting endeavors. He then commented that I would be
writing up the Expo (part of which, of course, you are reading
Dave then commented that Hawkins and Mueting were trying to
reach a "plateau of accuracy" in their research, requiring
verification of all data added to their extensive database. He
then added that we on the panel are some of the people working
diligently to gather information and are "committed to accuracy".
At that point Dave remarked that this seminar was to cover
the unified history of pingames from pre-flipper games up through
flipper games and the current solid state games - 61 years of
pinball. He said we would talk about "firsts", possibly
answering some of the questions Aaron Benedit had previously
asked in his "Name That Game" contest.
Dave then referred to us panelists as the "truth squad",
adding that we would always listen to authoritative information
to add to our knowledge. He then remarked that we would help
define the historical significance of certain games.
At that point Dave briefly mentioned others who were also
contributing to pinball history projects, etc. He said that
Steve Young was collecting serial numbers for existing machines.
He then told of Rob Rosenhouse keeping a database of solid-state
games, including their playfield characteristics, etc. He said
that Rob's data was available to Internet users, along with other
information on the net providing sources for schematics, etc.
Dave then told of Daina Pettit who has been compiling and
selling a list of post 1946 games, also keeping track of their
attributes. He then told of Doug Landman's project of providing
a cross-reference to references to pins in articles in the hobby
magazines, now adding book references.
On the subject of the Hawkins/Mueting database again, Dave
told of Don Mueting referring to their project as a "living
document" with updates possibly as little as 6 months apart. He
encouraged all to send them verifiable corrections/additions to
their currently published information.
Dave then commented that the Hawkins/Mueting database
actually went way beyond the information published in their book,
citing as an example the inclusion of details of the features of
many games, including such things as number of flippers, kickout
holes, targets, etc., all coded using a special coding system.
Dave then told of Don Mueting telling him that he currently had a
backlog of information to be entered into the database.
At that point Dave said it was time to get the panel into
the act, saying that he wanted to get into what he called
"borderline cases". He then asked Mike Pacak about a Chicago
Coin game he owned which he said was sort of a cross between a
rifle game and a pingame.
Mike said that game, made in the 1960's, was called CHAMPION
RIFLE and was where the player shot a rifle at targets on a
miniature pinball playfield, lighting the targets to score
points. He also said that it had a "captive ball" feature where
you shot at the ball to release it.
Dave then posed the question - was this a pin or not? He
then mentioned some other Chicago Coin horseracing games of which
the same question could be asked. One, he said, had a vertical
playfield, and the other 4 small fields each with it's own
plunger, where four players each tried to make their horse come
in first by shooting balls on their playfields. Dave then
commented that there were also some non coin-op games which maybe
also could be classified as pins.
Another "touchy question", Dave then said, was that of the
"conversions" made during World War II, then asking me to comment
on those games. I began by remarking that there were two basic
type of these conversions.
The first simpler type, I explained, was where an old game
was "converted" by only using a new backglass, bumper caps, and
instruction cards, the same playfield and cabinet being used.
For this type, which I call "mini conversions", the converting
company would advertise in the trade publications for operators
to send in their old games to be converted to a new game for a
The other, and more complicated type, I went on, was
exemplified by the games converted by United Manufacturing in the
first years of it's existence during the war. For these games
the converting company would buy up old games, create new
playfields and backglasses, and often use decals to provide new
artwork for the existing cabinets. I ended by explaining that in
this type the company essentially made new games using parts from
old ones so they would not have to use any "war essential"
At that point Rob Berk posed a question for the panel and
audience - "what type of format [for pinball information] do you
feel a need for?" Dave commented that maybe reproduction of
playfield layout charts might be appropriate for some games. Rob
then asked what else people would like to see in the way of
additional data? He further asked that if Mike did reproduce his
flyers, what quality of reproduction would be desired - glossy
high quality or lower cost black and white lower quality
When Dave further queried the audience as to what they
wanted (and would pay to have) someone remarked that he would
like to see the flyer books done by era. Rob then asked for a
show of hands as to who wanted it that way and who would like to
see it by manufacturer instead. Books by era easily won.
Rob next suggested possibly producing a video tape of the
flyers instead of a book. Mike remarked that he had "played with
that idea". Then someone suggested the new "Photo CD" idea.
When someone else began talking about providing cross-references
to book/magazine articles, Dave reminded him that Doug Landman
was already doing that.
Dave next posed the idea of using game photos (ala Dick
Bueschel's book) instead of brochures since, he said, some
brochures don't show the game as it was actually produced. He
then asked Sam Harvey for an example of this.
Sam said that, for instance, the "loser lanes" shown on the
brochure for Gottlieb's 1965 game ICE REVUE were not the same as
those on the production game. He then commented, referring to
his "database" book, that the Chicago Coin CHAMPION RIFLE game
described earlier by Mike Pacak was that company's game #307
which came out around October of 1963. When someone from the
audience pointed out another flyer vs game discrepancy, Mike
Pacak commented that in many cases the flyer is "better than
Dave then asked what people thought about including "one of
a kind" games (such as the Michael Jordan game in the Exhibit
Hall) in compilations such as the flyer book being discussed?
The consensus seemed to be "yes". Dave replied that that would
require more digging, then remarked that maybe these could be
included in a special supplement.
Someone from the audience next commented that he would like
to see pictures of games arranged with the full field view
directly under the backglass view (as I try to do in COIN SLOT)
so it would be easier to understand the play of the game. Mike
then commented that if we wanted the book to be 100 percent
complete (including everybody's games) it would "take 100 years".
When someone suggested that the easiest games to do (maybe
90, or so, percent) be done first, adding the more difficult ones
later, Steve Young commented that they once had the idea of doing
a similar thing in "serialized segments", possibly issued bi-
monthly. Steve said that from the response they got from the
hobby at that time they decided that it was not worth the risk,
saying that they were afraid that they could not even get paid
back for the first installment.
Mike then commented that what he has now could provide
enough material to produce 10 years of such installments. To put
it all in one book, he went on, would probably result in a book
costing over $100, a price he was afraid many would not pay.
Someone from the audience next commented that we seem to be
asking "what do we want?" when maybe the question should be "what
do we have?" He then remarked that there were hundreds of
machines out there and that people would probably buy any book
which had a picture of any of their games in it.
Dave then commented that possibly it could be handled
something like Dick Bueschel's PINBALL I book, with people
sending in pictures of their games to be included, in return for
which they would get monetary "credit" to be deducted from the
price of their copy. Mike's comment to that was that it would
entail an awful lot of bookkeeping.
Sam Harvey next commented that such a book would be
important to the hobby in more ways than one. He suggested that
pictures/flyers could help people looking for missing parts
(bumper caps, etc.) to determine what other games had the same
items, thus making it easier to find a "parts game".
Sam then jokingly asked long-time Bally employee Jim Patla
why the Bally brochure for their 1970 pin TRAIL DRIVE (which came
out at about the time he joined the company) had a pretty model
sitting on the game - it's field not being shown at all? Jim
replied that possibly the field design had not been finished at
the time the flyer was released.
At that point Gordon Hasse in the audience made a few
comments. He began by commenting that we were "sitting on a
great repository of pinball data", similar in scope to what he
himself holds for another hobby - the 1950's "scandal magazines".
He suggested that possibly, as people were doing in that hobby,
that instead of a book, individual copies of one (or as many as a
person wants) be sold - those wanting everything being able to
When Mike Pacak asked if he meant copies of flyers, Gordon
answered "yes". Dave then commented that, in a way, this was
what Hawkins and Mueting were offering by offering to put people
in touch with other people owning flyers, schematics, etc. -
letting them then deal with the owners for copies, etc.
Dave next announced that it was time to put his 'truth
squad' to work with some pinball 'firsts'. When we were asked
what the first game with a 'pop-bumper' was, Sam answered that
Gottlieb's first was BOWLING CHAMP. In a few seconds he added
that SARATOGA was Williams', and FLOATING POWER was Genco's. I
then chimed in to tell of a prewar game I owned as a kid which
had a form of pop-bumper.
That game, Stoner's 1938 game ZETA, I described as having a
circular stainless steel field sloping toward the center which
contained an "exploding spring" pop-bumper - the same as was used
in 1948 on Exhibit Supply's first pop-bumper game CONTACT. After
I commented that that was the only known occurrence of that type
of bumper used before 1948, Dave commented "another blow struck
for the truth".
When Dave next asked what was the first game to have an
"eject hole", I quickly answered that it was Harry Williams'
famous CONTACT in early 1934. I then proceeded to tell what the
late Harry Williams himself had told me years ago.
This was that when the first bumper was introduced on
Bally's BUMPER late in 1936, bumpers became so popular that the
eject hole quickly disappeared from pins, not appearing again
until Exhibit used it on a few games late in 1941. I added that
after the war this feature began appearing on almost all
Dave then asked what the first game with "trap holes" was,
indicating that the new pinball pricing guide by Larry Bieza,
which was for sale in the Exhibit Hall, said it was Gottlieb's
1952 pin QUARTETTE. No one seemed to disagree with that except
for one person in the audience who said it might have been that
company's NIAGARA which came out in late 1951.
When the same question was asked about "gobble holes" no one
seemed to disagree with the book's reference to Gottlieb's QUEEN
OF HEARTS from 1952. Sam Harvey then added that the last game to
have such holes was that company's SWEETHEARTS in 1963.
After declaring that the same book indicated that Gottlieb's
1957 pin MAJESTIC was first to employ a "roto-target" with no
contradiction from anyone, it was stated that Gottlieb's AIRPORT
and COLLEGE QUEENS in 1969 were first to employ a "vari-target"
(where the amount of score depended on how hard the target was
hit). Long-time designer Steve Kordek was then credited with
designing the first "drop-target".
Rob Berk next interjected a query, asking if anyone knew who
designed the first "slingshot kicker"? When Sam answered
"Gottlieb", Rob said he meant "which person". Rob himself then
answered that he believed it was a man named Abe Wexler.
Getting back to the "drop target", Dave next began
describing the difference between the earliest and later versions
of this component. He then presented the trivia that the game
employing the most drop-targets was Gottlieb's "2001" in 1971
which had a total of 20.
When Dave next asked about the first game with a "roll-
under" no one ventured a guess, Dave remarking that that seems to
require more research. When he then asked about the first use of
a "spinning target", Sam Harvey replied that it was on Gottlieb's
1963 pin SWING ALONG. As far as the "horizontal spin target" was
concerned, the consensus seemed to be that it was first used on
Williams' ACES AND KINGS in 1970.
At that point Rob Berk next asked about the first use of a
"center shooter", or "turret shooter" as they are more commonly
known? I replied that it was first used by Gottlieb in 1950.
Dave then asked if that type of shooter was the first use of
recirculating one ball five times per game vice using five
separate balls? It was agreed that, as far as anyone knew, that
was true, since these turret shooter games predated both the
multi-player and "Add-A-Ball" games which recirculated one ball.
When Rob Berk next asked about the first game to use an "up-
post" to keep the ball from 'draining' between the flippers, Dave
answered that it was Williams' 1968 pin CABARET. Someone from
the audience then brought up the games by Gottlieb in the early
1950's which employed a "fence" device to keep the first ball
from draining until a certain minimum score (usually 300,000
points) was obtained.
It was acknowledged that that was certainly similar to the
"up post", the difference being the "intent" of the feature. In
one case it was to allow the player's skill to reward him with
longer play, and in the other to guarantee a player a decent
first ball score.
Sam Harvey next asked Steve Kordek in the audience if the
rotating targets on Williams' 1966 game FOUR ROSES (which were
turned by the 'score motor') were only used on that game? Steve
said that was correct.
Next we had a question from long-time pinball designer Steve
Kordek. He said that his Genco game TRIPLE ACTION in early 1948
was the first pingame with two flippers at bottom of the
playfield only, but he wanted to know what game first turned them
around to present configuration?
Much discussion of flippers and flipper arrangements
followed, but the question was not exactly answered. It was said
that it had happened at least by 1950, with the game in question
possibly being Gottlieb's SPOT BOWLER which came out around
November of that year. Dave made the comment that the reversing
of the flippers "led to the modern form of play".
Someone from audience then made the comment that the book
"Special When Lit" by Canadian Ed Trapunski says which game it
was, but he couldn't remember which game was referenced. Dave
then remarked "but, can we trust Trapunski's history?" This was
followed by some more discussion of flipper configurations.
Dave next asked what game first used the "mushroom bumper"?
The answer given was Bally's MONTE CARLO. Dave then made the
comment that he once said that Bally's mushroom bumpers were
similar to some bumpers used by Stoner sometime in the late
1930's, asking me if I knew anything about that? I answered that
I didn't know, but said that I have copies of the BILLBOARD
magazine ads from 1936 through 1939 and could possibly check on
Rob Berk next asked if anyone knew anything about the
special game TIME OF YOUR LIFE? Mike Pacak said that he had a
photo of it. Dave then read from an article which appeared in
the August 6, 1948 issue of BILLBOARD. It said that six games
were to be made for use in an "amusement game championship
contest" to be held in connection with soon to be released film
of the same name. The article referred to the machine as a
"giant, specially made game".
Dave next asked if anyone had ever seen one? No one said
they had, and one person in the audience made a joking comment
regarding the giant pingame HERCULES put out by Atari several
years ago. Rob Berk then asked if anyone knew if one actually
existed? No one had an answer. Dave then asked if anyone had
seen the movie with William Bendix? I answered, "yes, I have it
on video tape".
At that point Dick Bueschel from the audience spoke up
saying that he "would like to make a plea for something". He
then read a statement contained in the new Pinball Price Guide
implying that pre-flipper games had "little or no value". Dick
then said that he would like to give two reasons why these games
First, he said, the 1940's was "the height of development of
the non-flipper game", adding that when flippers came in old-time
players said that they made the game too easy. Dick then
commented that "the real game is the non-flipper game", citing my
recent article on Genco's 1940 game METRO as an example of one of
Secondly, Dick went on, "no value? - if someone found a HIT
THE JAPS or PARATROOPER today it would blow the value over
anything today", adding that these games are impossible to find
nowadays. Dick ended by saying "let's make a plea for 40's
games". Dave then remarked "let the historical record show there
were 'add-on kits' available after flippers came in, so that all
games with flippers may not have been originally so equipped,
which could mislead someone in trying to date a particular
Dave next asked what the last amusement game without
flippers was? He then answered, saying it was Bally's FUN CRUISE
in 1965. I then said that it was probably actually DELUXE FUN
CRUISE which came out the next year. Sam Harvey then asked
"isn't that like a 'queens game'"?, (a term, by the way, I
believe I invented). I answered "yes".
At that point Dave commented "that leads to the question of
how many Bally amusement games came out between 1952 and their
beginning of steady production of flippers in 1963?" He then
said that the common answer is one, but that this is a popular
misconception for some historians. Dave then remarked that we
have seen two at Pinball Expos, BALLS-A-POPPIN' and CIRCUS.
Dave next asked if anyone had seen Bally's 1958 game
CARNIVAL?; also asking: is it an 'amusement piece'? I reminded
him it was a flipper game, and said I heard it had score reels.
Dave then said that he thought the flippers on these games were
not true flippers. He was corrected by Sam who has CIRCUS and
said they were real flippers.
Dave next asked "How about Bally USA? - has anyone seen
one?" He was told it had light scoring and no flippers. He then
asked: "how about CROSSWORDS?" He was told that it was somewhat
like a bingo. Mike Pacak then said that he has another version
of that game called SPELLING BEE, which looks like it has a
factory glass. When Dave asked if it was an 'amusement' or
'gambling' game, Mike answered "gambling".
Dave then summarized the list of 1950's Bally amusement
pins, naming BALLS-A-POPPIN', CIRCUS, CARNIVAL, and USA
Dave then asked if someone wanted to define 'queens games'?,
which he said were offered in the flyers as amusement pieces.
Sam said they had 'pop bumpers' and 'slingshot kickers' to
maneuver the ball, but had no flippers. He then named some
examples including: ISLAND QUEENS, BEACH QUEENS, and BEAUTY
CONTEST. Dave then remarked that they had replay counters which
could go up to 999 like most bingos.
At that point Dave asked for questions from the audience?
Someone asked "what was the first game to have a 'ball return
gate'?" Sam Harvey answered that it was Bally's CROSS COUNTRY in
1963, the third Bally flipper game to come out after they
restarted production of that type of game again in that year. He
then explained in detail how that gate was qualified during play.
A brief discussion then followed regarding certain games made in
the 1930's in which performing a certain feat during play allowed
a ball to get into a special 'protected' area of the playfield
where larger scores could be obtained.
When Dave asked about other firsts, someone from the
audience asked about the first use of a 'captive ball'? Dave
answered that that was "a matter of definition" as to whether you
were talking about a true 'captive ball' or a 'messenger ball',
Dave then explaining the difference between the two.
Reiny Bangeter from the audience then told of Exhibit's
WINGS in 1940 which used a special form of the 'captive ball' to
sequentially close a fixed number of switches to provide a
multiple scoring function (2000 or 5000, for example). I then
commented that Chicago Coin also used a similar set-up on some of
their games around that time.
Someone next asked when the first 'score motor' was used on
a pingame? I replied that Exhibit Supply used a simple score
motor on some of their games in 1941. (NOTE: I later remembered
that a few earlier games, such as Chicago Coin's DUX in 1937 and
Exhibit Supply's ELECTRO in 1938, used a motor to provide either
mechanical or light animation on the backglass and also to
provide multiple scoring.)
Dave next asked how many six-player games had been made? He
then answered his own question naming three: SIX STICKS (1965),
SIX SHOOTER (1966), and SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN (1977). No one
Dave then asked if anyone had any more questions? It was
asked what was the first Add-A-Ball game to turn over the score
reels at 100,000 (ie. having a "fake zero" on the reels)? Dave
answered that his Gottlieb LARIAT from 1969 was one. Someone
also said it could have been MINI POOL or possibly CARD TRIX.
Dave next asked what the first multi-player pingame was. He
answered that it was Gottlieb's SUPER JUMBO (first 4-player), and
DUETTE (first 2-player), both coming out in the mid 1950's. When
I commented that back in the early 1930's there were games with
two side-by-side playfields, such as Bally's 1933 game JACK AND
JILL, etc., Dave jokingly remarked "we're making Aaron's job very
difficult", referring to Aaron Benedit's previously presented
"Name That Game" pinball trivia contest.
The final question from the audience was: "were 'roto-
targets' used by any manufacturer other than Gottlieb?" Sam
Harvey answered that Williams never used them, but that they used
what he called a "horizontal roto-target" on a few games such as
FOUR ROSES and BEAT TIME in the 1960's.
At that point Dave Marston decided it was time to wrap
things up. He said that there was still more research to be done
in the hobby, first mentioning the collection of serial numbers
from existing games for such researchers as Steve Young.
Dave next said that flyers and schematics which a person may
own can provide significant information, even though you don't
have the actual game. He then remarked that if you want to be
"world famous" you should do something which has not already been
At that point Dave gave a list of possible projects people
could participate in. He first mentioned doing a "Who's Who in
the pinball business", or doing research in trade magazines other
than BILLBOARD. Next he talked of people reporting on sightings
of different games, or working on a list of 'borderline cases'
(games which are similar to pins, but not exactly).
Finally, Dave mentioned the preparation of a "directory of
manufacturers and suppliers", or "corporate histories" of pingame
companies. Dave then told the people in the audience that if
they had any other ideas he would like to hear about them, saying
they could contact us panel members who would be around during
the rest of the show.
Dave ended by saying "now you know more about information
gathering in the pinball hobby", and finally commenting "you
should all have fun continuing along the path of information
gathering". That ended our seminar.