Perhaps the legacy of an artist finds its time spent too thin?My previous posts about Bing's record sales,going back some years already here,take note of a current contemporary efforts ,(Especially CHARTMASTERS)to shelve off Bing .To some,crediting physical sales over Elvis is enough,ripping away from the credited sales of "White Christmas"That same process finds Bing at no.65..This whole ball of wax is sadly put together with flawed facts.,If  this yardstick is gradually accepted,the likesnand legacies of Bing,Frank and even Elvis will be further buried for future generations..Perhaps some kind of agreement amount those who appreciate Bing,including me and Pantelis,can change things?It's not that Chartmasters and others have the wrong premise to clear out misconceptions of fanatic fans of various performers,its just that terms such as ""orphan " do not apply to Bing?Not to get to technical,ALL facts pertaining to Bing into the 1930s,1940s, and early 1950s find his records and films out selling ,in records and box office,all other musical performers.In real terms of contemporary data, Bing did better than all his contemporaries,and more so,IF you combine Frank,Elvis and the Beatles and Michael Jackson,Bing's culalitive box office figures beat them all.With no disrespect to others,Bing HAS a DOCUMENTED trail of contemporary success.Ignored?.Is the Bing Crosby's legacy  erased by time?The Crosby legacy should never be underrated/