As Issued 1944 IBM M1 Carbine

Hopefully you all can confirm the title statement. Vet bring back from Korea; provenance to follow. All IBM save unmarked oiler, band, and recoil plate. Unusual push button safety for April 1944; SN is 90,000 units from end of production in May. My IBM magazine, mag pouch, and Engineer's holster. I'm a lefty, so the pouch is backwards. Carbine had been together a LONG time. Gummed screws and works, grit and grime, bolt springs gunked up, and the interior of the bolt was like varnish. Bore is bright and excellent.

T

Nice lookin' carbine regardless...

I'm probably not the only one that doesn't get overally excited about the term "vet bringback." It's simply too hard to prove with and especially without any paperwork. The gun itself appears to be right. How is the right side of the rear sight marked? If it's marked IRCO (maybe drawing number too) then there's a chance it could be original to the gun. If you could add a picture or two of the staking of the rear sight we can tell if the sight is original to your gun. The type two barrel band on your rifle is one of the ones IBM used near the end of its production. I suspect the receiver is one IBM made itself since I don't see an AO on the receiver heel. Verify this though as not all AO made receivers were marked AO. If your receiver has a the "wide" tang then AO made it. The only other thing I see is that the stock has been overally sanded...in my opinion anyway. I like it in the long run. The only possible thing you could say is the rear sight and it's possible it could be correct. Thanks for sharing! :thup:

The rear sight looks like an H in a shield (Hemphill)

You have a nice looking carbine.
I have seen "H" in shield milled on a few I.B.M.'s.
Enlarging the right side photo it shows, as Bill says, a pressed sight with "H" in shield. Check the stake marks, or if you can take a close up photo of the rear sight base.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...10abb317-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger

The rear sight looks like an H in a shield (Hemphill)

---

It sure is, Bill. If I'd blown it up some I could have noticed it myself. My thought now is that the rear sight could be a replacement (field modification maybe). Hopefully he will post some pictures of the top of the dovetail. There's one picture already that comes close to showing that area, but it's taken from the rear and it's hard to tell from that angle.

Rear sight is "H" in shield. "H" also on left lug of bolt. Gunboards is saying L.R.Co. 7160060 ones were the most common, but a limited number of "H" ones were used. We have a small "G" under the "H" on the bolt. New pics added to the first.

T

1944 IBM M1 Carbine Slideshow by majspud | Photobucket

On IBM they didn't they start to use milled Rear Sights with the "H in a shield" at or near 3,964,000 i think the SN on this Carbine 3,024,924 , but this is a sweet looking Carbine.

SN is 3924294.

T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majspud

Rear sight is "H" in shield. "H" also on left lug of bolt. Gunboards is saying L.R.Co. 7160060 ones were the most common, but a limited number of "H" ones were used. We have a small "G" under the "H" on the bolt. New pics added to the first.

T

1944 IBM M1 Carbine Slideshow by majspud | Photobucket

---

The "H" in shield sight people on this site and others are referring to is the type II milled version. The sight on your IBM is a type III stamped version. As stated some type II "H" in shield rear sights did appear in the 3.93 range (at least). If you could post one or maybe two more pictures of the rear sight from the top it should tell us if your sight is a replacement or not. When you take the picture(s) make sure the sight is adjusted all the way to the left so staking or index marks (possibly both) can be revealed.

Updated as requested.

T

1944 IBM M1 Carbine Slideshow by majspud | Photobucket

Thanks for posting the needed pictures. I see what I believe are clear index marks (short slash) on top of the dovetail. This means most likely that your IBM had a flip sight on it at some point. Very few IBM carbines ended up with original rear adjustable sights. I still think this is a super nice carbine, one that I'd gladly own.

Maybe someone else will see something I'm missing. Field upgrades on the rear sights of these weapons definitely happened when the adjustables became more abundant. Also, I didn't even touch postwar arsenal updates that so many M1 carbines went through.

Daylight pics.

T

OK, the $64 question: was this worth the two mix-master carbines (1/44 NPM and 2/44 IBM) that I traded for it?

T

Depends on what you paid for the two mix masters, verses how you value this I.B.M.
If I had two $600-$800 mixed parts carbines, I would trade for yours.

One I paid $630 for (NPM, engineer's holster, flash hider, three mags, sling, oiler), the other was a CMP service grade (IBM, 1 mag) for $700. As I still have the engineer's holster ($300 itself), flash hider, and six mags I think I'm ahead.

T

Yeah its proves that i need a new prescription, i used my cheaters and i can see the small O in the 9 now. But anyway like i said, Its a sweet looking Carbine. Happy Shooting, Thanks

Frank

Thank you very much for this post! Some time ago while on FLA vacation, I purchased a late IBM carbine in Jensen Beach(?). It was buried in the used guns section so that only the front sight was visible. No history available. Serial number is 3934176. Very late non AO. In short, it is almost exactly the same as the one pictured here. Differences appear to be stock markings AND rear sight. Mine IS the milled T2 Hemphill adjustable sight. I posted the pictures here and received some comments regarding the "staked rear sight" not being correct! Now we find out that T2 sights were in fact installed and I'll bet so were T3s. The so called "witness marks" are in fact an early standard form of chisel staking used to secure flip sights by tightening the dove tail. On my carbine it is obvious the aperture ramp was moved side to side and chisel staked on each side as per ordinance recommendations. This staking continued to be used on the EARLY adjustable installations because the results of the PUNCH testing being conducted by International Register CO (IRCO) and QHMC to fix the loosening problems of the heavier adjustable sights either wasn't finished or disseminated. In short, leave the gun alone. IMHO It's probably 100% as built and just maybe pushes back the IBM T2 & T3 adjustable sight introduction threshold.

Life is so much simpler for readers of MWO ORD B28-W3 which includes 30 ea. "PUNCH, Staking" with each package of 360 adjustable rear sights shipped to field forces (either type adjustable). Figure 5 of that document clearly depicts a round pointed punch and para. 7(c)(18) requires the punch's point be kept sharp at a 90-120 deg angle.

As has been pointed out, there are several anecdotes of rear sight replacement at the unit level in the ETO and for those really on the ball, there was a late ETO requirement to perform MWO-W3 on all carbines being packed for shipment overseas. This work was done well before MWO-4 was published and the two prior carbine MWOs would not have been needed on late IBMs.

No status reports on this work have been located to date, but it is worth noting that of 13 rear sights visible in Larry Ruth's photo of carbine processing at FN post-V-E day, every one sports an adjustable sight.

Having seen the updated photos of the dove tail. I must agree that it could be an upgrade installation or repair. That being said, however, we see what appears to be an original set of lighter stake marks on the front of the dovetail (similar to milspec flip staking) and a heavy punch on the rear. Could the punch have been done later to the new milspec when the original staking started to fail before the gun even left the factory? We will never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpw7351

We will never know.

---

Ahhh, the last ditch defense, invoked after the preferred theory falls on hard times. Even if all things are possible, it is not necessarily true that they are equally likely.

I summarized info from a WWII order that could represent thousands, or tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands - of similar modifications. However many it was that got rear sights replaced, all (or almost all) would have shown both the chisel and round punch marks like our example here.

That's the big picture. More narrowly, you might want to find CCNL-345 and -378 which detail two late, late IBMs with factory adjustables. (Hint: they don't help your case)

To change the subject away from the rear sight for a minute, is that cut across the barrel just behind the front sight a bit unusual for an IBM barrel? Also, I can't help but wonder, with the many thousands of parts that were integrated to IBM from several of the prime contractors, wouldn't it be a bit unusual for an IBM carbine to have all IBM marked parts? Isn't that sear a bit early for that serial number? Maybe it turned up at the bottom of a bin just as this one was being assembled? I only have one IBM, and it's got and NPM trigger housing, Inland bolt, and a Niedner front sight, but it could have been built that way. - Bob

If it helps Bob, I've seen that machined cut behind the front sight on more than a few IBMs.

I agree with firstflabn completely regarding the 10's of thousands, heck, millions of guns that have gone who knows where and will never be seen again for all eternity. I believe what we see now are some bring backs, presentations, a few possibly stolen from production lines or post war, many from DCM and LEO sales, and re-imports and foreign returns. I'm sure many of these were modified as per gov't edict. Many weren't and were declared "unserviceable" and sold. I'm more interested in the carbines built at the end of the bulk production runs. The ones that don't quite fit the preconceived notions, books or newsletters. Like the one in the previous post and possibly the one in this thread. If one looks at carbine production, there were the northern tier producers: Inland, Saginaw, IP, Rock-Ola, QHMC, Stan Pro, and NPM. From Michigan to Western NY. ALL near power, water, labor, subcontractors, and transportation. It would make sense that they would develop a local supply chain and swapping network that would be their primary sources for parts whenever possible. The same would apply to the southern cluster, Winchester, Underwood and IBM. SE NY and central CT. If we look at rear sights for instance (because of this tread). We have HI and H in Shield (Hemphill) PI (Packard) IRCO (International Register) CH (unknown to me) SA (Springfield Armory-post war?) and J.A.O. (J A Otterbein). We see T2 HI and H in Shield from Hemphill of Pawtucket RI as the first of the adjustables, I believe. Maybe because they were the first tasked to develop the adjustable sight? Packard came next to supply mostly Inland (PI) and upgrades. Next up, IRCO of Chicago IL to develop or produce the T3 (cheaper and easier to fabricate) for the Northern tier AND the mandated upgrades of all earlier guns. For the southern cluster, you had CH, H in Shield and JAO of Middletown CT to supply T2 and T3 sights for them, and also the upgrade program. Finally, Hemphill, which probably made the first adjustables of both types settled in to supply Winchester and the upgrade program. JAO did the same along with flip safties, but only later. IRCO did the same in the north, Inland and upgrades. I suspect as the early 1944 terminations approached and flip sight supplies dwindled for some, adjustables, Hemphill in the south and IRCO in the north, were diverted into production as needed. For this reason, I believe one must be very careful of declaring the LATE production carbine sights of the terminated makers upgrades. IF geographically it makes sense that they could indeed be OEM, then they need to be given the benefit of the doubt as to correctness. One needs to look past the guns themselves and attempt to get a feel for what was going on with wartime production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

To change the subject away from the rear sight for a minute, is that cut across the barrel just behind the front sight a bit unusual for an IBM barrel? Also, I can't help but wonder, with the many thousands of parts that were integrated to IBM from several of the prime contractors, wouldn't it be a bit unusual for an IBM carbine to have all IBM marked parts? Isn't that sear a bit early for that serial number? Maybe it turned up at the bottom of a bin just as this one was being assembled? I only have one IBM, and it's got and NPM trigger housing, Inland bolt, and a Niedner front sight, but it could have been built that way. - Bob

---

The " cut across the barrel just behind the front sight" is found on all IBM made barrels.

Published integration records show roughly 465K parts were integrated to IBM. IBM delivered 346,500 carbines. If you take that info at face value one could claim there was no such thing as an all IBM carbine. However, when you start looking at the parts that were integrated roughly 200K of the 465K were parts you could not identify as being made by or for a specific manufacturer, parts like springs, pins, screws, etc. Discounting the non-identifiable parts the percentage of integrated parts to carbines delivered gets smaller. Period records also indicate a lot of integrated parts were used to fulfill the spare parts requirements of contracts in addition to being used to assemble carbines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

The " cut across the barrel just behind the front sight" is found on all IBM made barrels.

---

I only have the one, but it doesn't have the cut like the OP's IBM. - Bob

RPW: Timelines: most carbine makers were done, gone, finished by April 1944. That is the fourth month. Type 2 and 3 rear sights were just getting rolling about Feb-March of that year. Do you think that any of the other makers would be sending scarce adjustable sights to companies that were done a month later? NPM who never put anything but flip sights on their carbines sent IBM 20K assemblies in Feb 44. I have two carbines that came from the factory with type 2-3 rear sights, neither has any stake marks beyond the two used to secure the adjustable base, dead center in the dovetail. My NPM has a type 2 added in a rebuild it has both the punch marks and a very subdued chisel mark from the flip that used to be there.

I agree completely with you. Everything fits. I believe deliveries of most parts to the terminated wound down thru late winter early spring. They all knew in Jan Feb that it was over. So they ran their inventories down and purchased or swapped only what they needed to finish off what guns they could. Sights, if needed would, have come from local suppliers. IRCO north, Hemphill south. Hence the small numbers of these adjustables on the late terminated guns. We all assume that only the punch was used to secure adjustables. According to Ruth, IRCO and QHMC paired up to solve the problem of adjustables breaking loose. IMHO, I believe they initially used the same procedures to secure adjustables and flips. They didn't know any better. No new procedure would be recommended much less implemented until the problem manifested itself as more newer type sights were installed. I have an UN Quality from this time period with an IRCO T3 (geographically correct) sight. The staking is unlike any I've seen. 4 small punches very precisely and methodically placed in each quadrant of the dovetail. Almost as if they were testing to see what worked. Was it an IRCO/QHMC test gun? Who knows? Do I believe this adjustable sight is correct to the gun? Absolutely! Completely off topic. Watching news this morning. Saw footage of a French cop in Paris carrying what appeared to be an M1 Carbine!!! Oiler cutout, barrel and front sight unmistakable. Still going strong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpw7351

Saw footage of a French cop in Paris carrying what appeared to be an M1 Carbine!!! Oiler cutout, barrel and front sight unmistakable.

---

Mini 14? Was it this...Reports: Paris Attackers Dead | NewsRadio KFBK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

I only have the one, but it doesn't have the cut like the OP's IBM. - Bob

---

Sorry, thought you were referring to the "I" cut under the front sight, which all IBM barrels have and is visible on some even though the front sight is installed properly. Some IBM barrels have an additional cut aft the "I" cut.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Barrels1-1.jpg

Thanks Brian,

Great post showing both type cuts.

Jim

I believe International Register Co. was a subcontractor for National Postal Meter. But one question I have is has anyone ever seen a type 2 or type 3 rear sight without the locator cut outs for the staking in the dovetail on the sights base or did they have the cuts from the very first ones?

I really appreciate the clarification regarding the IBM barrels. :thup: - Bob

This is fun; kind of like watching my first tennis match with Connors and a young Asian fellow (whose name escapes me) back in '91 or so. I'm picking up on how the game is played from the experts. So, if I read this correctly, it is likely that my carbine is all correct as is, but we'll really never know?

T

:lol:[QUOTE=majspud;320341]This is fun; kind of like watching my first tennis match with Connors and a young Asian fellow (whose name escapes me) back in '91 or so. I'm picking up on how the game is played from the experts. So, if I read this correctly, it is likely that my carbine is all correct as is, but we'll really never know?

T[/QUOTE

Yes, "fun" is one way to put it! :lol:
I still firmly believe the rear sight has been changed out. There are clear index marks seen on the dovetail of your IBM. I have seen a picture of a factory installed IBM with adjustable sight. It did not have any index marks on the dovetail. The H in shield type three rear sight was not one IBM was known to have used. In a nutshell, you still have a nice late production IBM carbine. It's unfortunate about the overally sanded stock. Often, ovesanding is done to make one "pretty" for future resale. It could have been done in an arsenal situation, but maybe Bubba did it to get it ready to sell. That's probably the part we will never know.
If there's not a picture of the stock nose then post one or two from the top please. It will help to determine is there's ever been the far more frequently used type one barrel band on it.

Thanks

Here is the front band. I also removed most of the grease with a tooth pick and cleaning patch from the rear sight for a better look at both sides.

T

The rear sight has been replaced. The carbine left the factory with a "flip" sight.

Mini 14 makes more sense

Front Band removed.

T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majspud

Front Band removed.

T

---

Very nice! I see no indications that the stock ever had an action in it with a type one band. It's very rare to have one like that given the amount of type one usage versus type two. That could well be the original stock to your IBM.

Great job on the pics, spud. Wish I could do that.

If you would, measure inside to inside on the front chisel marks - that is, determine the minimum distance between left and right "disturbances" to base metal.

If it's too small or way too big for a flip sight, that's one thing. If it's about right, the question kinda answers itself.

I don't have flip sight dimensioned drawings, but I do have a flip by another maker to measure. So, do a blind taste test, report the findings, and if nobody else has an IBM appropriate flip to measure, I'll whip out the calipers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstflabn

Great job on the pics, spud. Wish I could do that.

If you would, measure inside to inside on the front chisel marks - that is, determine the minimum distance between left and right "disturbances" to base metal.

I don't have flip sight dimensioned drawings, but I do have a flip by another maker to measure. So, do a blind taste test, report the findings, and if nobody else has an IBM appropriate flip to measure, I'll whip out the calipers.

---

If it's too small or way too big for a flip sight, that's one thing. If it's about right, the question kinda answers itself.

Inside to inside chisel to chisel marks is about 1.30cm

inside left punch mark to right side chisel mark is 1.20cm.

T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstflabn

Great job on the pics, spud. Wish I could do that.

If you would, measure inside to inside on the front chisel marks - that is, determine the minimum distance between left and right "disturbances" to base metal.

If it's too small or way too big for a flip sight, that's one thing. If it's about right, the question kinda answers itself.

I don't have flip sight dimensioned drawings, but I do have a flip by another maker to measure. So, do a blind taste test, report the findings, and if nobody else has an IBM appropriate flip to measure, I'll whip out the calipers.

---

I meant to tell him the same thing as far as the fantastic detail cleaning on the dovetail and the great pictures too! Thanks for the reminder!

Thanks for the praise. I've been in similar conditions and have learned to do a good job. Key is reducing your megapixel count - you don't need much - and use the macro setting. Cropping can enlarge the picture. Auto correct sometimes helps with contrast. I have a ho-hum Nikon 16 megapixel camera set to about 3.5 for the shots, and use a prop to keep my hands steady.

T:thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majspud

Inside to inside chisel to chisel marks is about 1.30cm

inside left punch mark to right side chisel mark is 1.20cm.

T

---

Sorry I'm not a CM guy. Grew up learning inches. Had to look this up 2.54cm = 1 inch

1.3cm = 0.511 inch

1.2cm = 0.47 inch

Original flip sight stake marks on one of my 3.9 mil IBM carbines.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...01/RSide-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...01/LSide-1.jpg

Thanks, spud and all. My SG flip measures .530" outside to outside, so that's close enough in this somewhat imprecise test that you probably need either/both the drawings or someone to measure an IBM appropriate flipper. There's certainly nothing critical about flip sight outside dimensions, so a broad tolerance wouldn't come as a big surprise.

For general reference, a small paper clip is almost exactly 1/32" - so the discrepancy is about one fourth that on each side. Wouldn't take much of an undercut to fit my sight within your stake marks.

Thanks Brian for the close up on your IBM. It clearly shows the chisel marks. These same marks are on the op's carbine in addition to the punch marks for the adj sight, leaving little doubt that at one time the op's carbine had a leaf sight.

Range report.

Range report. Bright, sunny, and COLD; 18 degrees. I couldn't feel my fingers at the end. 1-30 round magazine of '71 Lake City. 5 rounds benched at 25 yards and the rest prone at 100 yards. I did not use the sling in either situation. The sighting shots basically moved up as I adjusted my front sight POA; on the 4th shot I adjusted one click of right windage.

Drifted a little left and low at 100 yards. All casings went about six feet at 4:00 and over my head instead of hitting me (I'm a lefty).

T

It'll be more comfortable on a warmer day...it works fine though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

Sorry, thought you were referring to the "I" cut under the front sight, which all IBM barrels have and is visible on some even though the front sight is installed properly. Some IBM barrels have an additional cut aft the "I" cut.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Barrels1-1.jpg

---

Curious about the plain versus grooved barrel. As mine is very late production, is it a deleted milling process, early vs. late? Or are the little 'ribs' to aid in heat transfer to cool the barrel more quickly?

T

I'm referring to the barrel on the right.

T

So, you mean the machining marks in the barrel? The chisels leave that because of the machine screw feed that moves the headstock along at a measured pace. It's just a matter of an extra run to remove those rings after the barrel reaches correct outside diameter...time. If that's what you're referring to...

Yes, that's what I meant; an extra milling step removed to speed things along.

T

Not that it was poor machining, I even like the look. Our peacetime C7 rifles have the same machine marks.

I get those marks on my lathe whenever the bit gets dull. Pretty sure they didn't have carbide tooling back then, could be the bit went dull or the coolant/lube flow got interrupted...

Russ

Sometimes the angle of the chisel will effect it too.

Used to turn drums and rotors . We'd do quicker / deeper cuts to get the right shape , then do a final pass of a shallow cut at a slower feed to smooth it up . Same thing here .
Chris

It also looks like the left one has been refinished. The sand has smoothed the edges some.

C.C.N.L #371, page 16. For some barrel manufacturers, early barrels were ground smooth, later barrels were not.

OP, Nice carbine. Rear sight not original.

After close examination of some of the photos, the possibility exists that the rear sight was originally on a late Winchester carbine. Does anyone (except BQ) know why? A hint. It's been discussed in the Carbine Club Newsletters within the last 10 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newscotlander

After close examination of some of the photos, the possibility exists that the rear sight was originally on a late Winchester carbine. Does anyone (except BQ) know why? A hint. It's been discussed in the Carbine Club Newsletters within the last 10 years.

---

This won't be the answer you're looking for, but from my own experience and what I've seen on other adjustable sighted Winchester carbines, they tended to stake the right side of the dovetail and not so much the left; not saying it never happened, but it's a definite pattern I've seen. Inland for instance tended to stake the front and back of the right side and once over on the left side (front I think). Again, I've seen some staking that didn't follow any of the patterns I just mentioned that was probably factory original. The only other thing without looking at my CCNL's (at work now) would be the shape of the punch used. Anyway, I hope you find your answer...sounds like an interesting bit of trivia there.

On factory installed adjustable rear sights, the location of the staking is directly related to where the notches are in the base of the sight. Some early milled adjustable rear sights had the notches on the rear of the base, left and right sides. Later milled adjustable rear sights and all stamped adjustable rear sights had the notches on the right side, front and back. I'm sure this change was made to facilitate installation. The early milled sights would of had the sight ramp moved to one side to stake and then moved to the other side to get the other staking. Later sights would of only needed the sight ramp be moved to the left side to allow for staking. Below is an example of a early milled rear sight and a later one.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...s9d6b548-1.jpg

Only notches are on the left side.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0d28c7_z-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

Only notches are on the left side.

---

I think you mean right side. Or let's say starboard. That's what I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

Only notches are on the left side.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0d28c7_z-1.jpg

---

All three of my late Winchester carbines with original adjustable sights are staked only on the right or starboard side. That was the point I was trying to make say versus Inland who sometimes did it differently from what I've seen on my own Inland carbines with original adjustable rear sights.

Original Inland carbines will have the rear sights staked in a way that would conform to the notches on the rear sight. So, they could be staked on the right side, front and back or at the rear, right and left, as in the photo I posted above. The staking should conform to the notches on the rear sight. Now, I have seen rebuilt/refurbished carbines that were staked in other locations, but this was probably because it was the only way to get the rear sight tight. Below are two examples of milled adjustable rear sights with the earlier rear, right and left notches showing the staking on original Inland carbines.

NOTE: The staking has nothing to do with why I think the stamped adjustable rear sight on the OP's IBM is from a Winchester carbine.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zps6168f-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ps4f1d12-1.jpg

Sorry Chris,
I probably had too many glasses of Port before posting.

Been there.

lol too many times

Gray Paint?

Wild guess: Different knurling on the large knob.

Gray paint is what I'm thinking.

Late Winchester having a stamped adjustable rear sight and gray paint.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...66157949-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newscotlander

Gray paint is what I'm thinking.

---

Lol, do I win anything?

You get the "I've been reading the Carbine Club Newsletter" award.

:cool:

And that's some valuable reading material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newscotlander

You get the "I've been reading the Carbine Club Newsletter" award.

---