Who is talking about a grand conspiracy, Matt?

When the initial news came out with little detail, some of us here expressed some suspicions that it might be fake. As more information dripped out (increasingly credible), those suspicions faded, particularly when Marc and Brian mentioned in the previous page about Brevoort and Salicrup.

Subsequent to that information, we have a discussion about quirks in the piece that raise some questions. I don't think anyone at any point talked about anyone having conspired with anyone.

Naturally, #137 is an issue in which many here have a keen interest.  Confirmation that the piece is genuine is hardly a case of "Nuff said". On the contrary, a revelation that this heretofore unknown item exists  is naturally a springing board for further questions.

Brevoort surmises that it was either Jim Salicrup or Weezie that made the decision to go with a new version. I, for one, would be interested to hear what their reminscences are regarding this piece.

Salicrup specifically says in the Brevoort blog that it was created as a cover.  That really should be the final word.  I know that initially there was uncertainty about this piece, but at this point we have testimony from two people directly involved in the production.  Holding on to a theory that is not only unsupported by any evidence but also is contradicted by the available evidence strikes me as obdurate, if not arrogant.  Perhaps it does not make sense to you that they chose to design a cover like this, but they did.  Obviously someone agreed it did not look good, because it was not used.