Seasonal Felicitations all,  Am I missing something?

> If the last digit is omitted, the roll numbers are in (approximate)
> chronological order.  That is what is being proposed.  Thus, Ampico
> Roll No. 70301, "The Flight of the Bumblebee," played by Sergei Rach-
> maninoff, would become Roll No. 7030.  Roll No. 67673 would become
> 6767, and so forth.

Even without dropping the size digit, the Ampico roll numbers are in
approximate chronological order within their series.  What would be the
advantage of dropping the final digit?  I would guess that by this time,
every Ampico roll collector knows that the final digit denotes roll
size, no?

Starting with Flight of the Bumblebee, the sequence is now:

70301, 70313, 70323, 70331, etc.  MS Access sorts just fine this way,
and I have no trouble putting them on my shelves with the numbers
complete.

To those of us who are dyed-in-the-wool collectors, I see possible
confusion arising by elimination of the size digit.  For example, in
the dated number series, # 101053 (Marche Slav, Op. 31) would then
become 10105.

Still with me?

101055, Dance Music Series, Pgm. Number 18, with the size digit
eliminated would also become 10105.

Unless the roll title follows the number, I wouldn't know which roll
was being referenced in a case such as this.

What am I failing to understand about this proposal?

Dean Randall
In 22 degree weather (!) on Puget Sound
pianolists@earthlink.net