Reverse proof Roosevelt dime most significant coin of century.

It was actually a constitutional amendment (22nd Amendment) and not a statutory law.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I hate to tell you this, but the 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress on March 21, 1947 and ratified by the states on February 27, 1951.

Green said "and legislation was passed". It was. He is right.

 

Congress must vote and pass constitutional amendments; I agree. The phrase "legislation" usually refers to statutory law however. This was not statutory law, but constitutional law. There is a huge difference.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I think some people could be confused by the wording. Perhaps I am just being (unintentionally) nit picky. Without a constitutional amendment, if Congress attempted to limit presidential terms by statute, it would almost certainly be ruled as unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

 

Again you misstate what I said, understate what these dimes are, and give a limited definition of unique to prove your erroneous point. Does this ever end or do you keep it up until the poster is fed up with it all, so you feel somehow you "win"?

 

That is true, but didn't serve the 4th.

 

He died during his fourth term in office, so he did, in fact, serve part of his fourth term.

I didn't mis-state anything. Rather, I expect a "serious" post to be logical and to not misuse words or resort to gross hyperbole to try to convince someone of something unsupported by evidence. Every time someone posted a counter example, you would further change your definition. An ad hoc hypothesis is meritless.

 

I would hardly call TomB's post a troll post and it is absolutely evaluating the potential of this coin. Why is it illogical to look at other Roosevelt Dimes below the 100,000 mintage mark to examine this coin?

 

Unbelievable! You clearly can't understand written English or you're intentionally misstating the facts. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I've stated the facts and it appears, other than you and a couple others, most understand them to be true. So hey, let's just agree to disagree. I'll continue to collect and make money from the class of coins/sets I've clearly defined and you can do as you like.

 

Because, like was pointed out, these dimes are more UNIQUE than early proofs from the same mint as business strikes.

True, I did have to further refine my definition for the nitpickers on this forum who chose not to understand. I guess you have a problem with my refinements?

Before you go off on another tangent, here's another definition of UNIQUE:
not typical; unusual

 

So, The title of this thread should read "most UNIQUE coin of the century"?..

 

I have problems with people that make grandiose claims and unsupported hypotheses. I also disagree with those who represent bold, unqualified statements as fact without evidence as you initially did. I am also bothered by the ever changing criteria and modifications to your theory to try to make it work. It seems to me that a logical person would at least be open to the possibility that the initial hypothesis is garbage if it must be revised every 10 minutes. In science, marketing, and every other academic endeavor, the facts dictate the theory and not the other way around. On another note, don't interpret the silence of other posters as implied agreement with you. I think many just don't feel like arguing with you.

With that said, I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

Hey, the facts are the facts, sorry you don't see them or choose to disregard them in an attempt to make your point. The fact is the coins/sets I eventually described to your liking, have all been big winners - that's not a theory, it's a fact. The numbers are out there, look them up. It's you my friend that continues to make unsubstantiated claims by comparing apples to oranges.

 

I enjoy a spirited debate........

 

Yeah, but it would be nice if the opposition had some relevant facts - I'd welcome facts that may enlighten me. Often trolls with an agenda, since they don't have the facts on their side, spew out comparisons that mean nothing and if that doesn't work, attack the messenger.

 

I don't see any agenda.........devils advocate, but not agenda. I like seeing things all the way through. Forth and back. I like you Statequarterguy but you seem to be trying to hold onto an untenable position. The assaults against your position are quite compelling. Let's all go to neutral corners and compare things (as you say) in five years. I hope you're right.......I bought multiples of this set hoping maybe to capitalize (ever so slightly) down the road. If I don't, it's no big deal. I love the collectible nature.

 

We do, but you ignore them. Big surprise there. You say that no coin with a mintage of less than 100k is a loser. We provide several counterexamples. Then you exclude gold. We provide additional examples. You further refine your definition. You then (apparently) have since modified it to coins struck in the likeness of circulating coin series. We then point to the 5 oz. ATB pucks which have crashed and yet you defend them as good investments notwithstanding the huge hair cuts that people are taking on these. So either you are sadly trolling; shamelessly trying to create speculation for your pecuniary benefit; and/or are outright delusional and oblivious to basic logic. If I take a loss on a coin, then that is not a "good" investment.

 

I love it. The "most unique" coin (whatever that means). Reverse proof coins are a dime a dozen (no pun intended) for other series, and Roosevelts are common as sugar cane. There is nothing even remotely unique about these items.

 

Not seeing this at all. If not an agenda, at minimum a peeing match. Untenable position? Like I said, the facts are the facts, and the fact is these coins/sets over the last 20 years have all been winners. If you compare apples to apples, there's nothing compelling about an apples to oranges assault.

 

See, no facts, just attack the messenger.

 

SQG - How old are you?