OK, this should be an interesting topic...my thoughts:

Yes, she did deserve the Emmy for 83-84. Even though there were only about 6 episodes in that season, they were some of the best of the whole series, and Jane really gave some outstanding performances, especially in the one where they have to bake all the cakes. Hilarious! But, in 84-85, I think it was a tough call. There were some so-so episodes and the material really wasn't Emmy acting caliber. She was up against Shelley Long, Susan Saint James, Isabel Sanford, and Phylicia Rashad. IMHO, the Emmy should have went to Isabel Sanford for The Jeffersons. Her acting in the last season, actually in every seaon of the show, was great, and I do believe she was really unsung as an actress...anyway, what does everyone think? Did she deserve the Emmy she never got but was nominated for in 86-87?

It's difficult to argue anyone over Shelley Long, though I loved Jane Curtin on K&A. Long was excellent in every year on Cheers.

Personally, I think she should have won in 1987 as well. There were tons of "moments" that season. She played Lucy & Rhoda to a tee, that hilarious hospital episode, and just a bunch of outstanding acting by her...of course, she was up against the Golden Girl actresses...

I never got to see 'General Hospital' on Paramount cos they replaced the eps with a Carry On film, but they are repeating Kate & Allie again from the 8th of Jan at 11.00am, so I'm hoping this time they will show many of the eps they missed the first time round due to certain error's, namely skipping eps, slapping diff ones on and of course sticking a totally different show on in the case of 'The Reunion' eps. Naturally those eps missed out were some if Jane Curtin's finest including 'Allie's First Date', 'Allie's Affair' and 'General Hospital'. I haven't seen any of these eps since they were shown on Channel 4 when I was still in school.

Oh and yes, she def did deserve her Emmy's.