Toor forum 1 room
close
more_vert

That photo can't be the stone described, surely?

(Or rather it could, but the description could be a severe case of over-imagination.)

Hob wrote:
That photo can't be the stone described, surely?

(Or rather it could, but the description could be a severe case of over-imagination.)

The item doesn't give a site-visit date so it could be a dubious entry, culled from other sources. It does say "At least…" so who knows? I came across these the other day:
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/8769
and they're not even mentioned in the book.

Andy