seamusuk
Well-known member
I was thinking....638???
I wonder what Perivale's reason for this was- if it had followed the pattern of both previous and following models it should have been model 632. Think 26(2), 61(2), 91(2) and the following 65(2).
Any ideas ??
Seamus
I wonder what Perivale's reason for this was- if it had followed the pattern of both previous and following models it should have been model 632. Think 26(2), 61(2), 91(2) and the following 65(2).
Any ideas ??
Seamus