On 1/16/06, gpvb1@comcast.net <gpvb1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It looks different than CP, though, don't you think? I just don't know,
> but the fact that they used so much of it, part-volume-wise (vs. Campagno
lo)
> makes me wonder if it was some less expensive material than CP, but you
> could be correct.
You can differentiate Ti alloys (I know CP isn't really an alloy...) by appearance? Ignoring that CP Ti was available in several grades, isn't it the cheapest of the common Ti materials. I'm not sure that at the time any other sort was even widely available. I suspect Tom is correct.
Kurt Sperry Bellingham WA
--
> fineartscrimshaw.com