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

same time.


     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

take place.


     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

order all.


     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

amusement pingames.


     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

are important.


     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

these games.


     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


(amusement/no flippers).


     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.