Thanks, chums. But it doesn't bother me. It just shows everyone what a pansy he is, he has to say it indirectly.
There is no new rule. You know this , but others ( shall we say unaware ) may take you as serious , and have a real problem. Happy New Year.
Do it for your fans, then, not me, if you're that sadistic you enjoy hurting my feelings. I don't understand this. Change a 3 to a 4, and a 4 to a 3, on existing coins, resulting in altered coins, that never existed. Do I need to slow down? Isn't that exactly what you're doing with your 1964-D?
You know how PCGS labels everything, even counterfeits and altered dates? I once sent in a 1942 (/1) merc dime. They sent it back raw with a pcgs label sticker on the flip saying, "Questionable Authenticity." Someone had altered it. Wonder what they'd put on a DC rejected coin? "Counterfeit?" "Altered date?" "Questionable Authenticity?" Someone should try it.
As much as I would enjoy further debate with you and your chums, I'll just stick to what I posted on #338. Have a nice day....
No, silly... you know spewing insults is only okay for the fanhood, and the rest of we "ignorant haters" just have to smile, deal with it, and be grateful for the fact they've so lowered themselves to even speak to us. Oh, if only we were able to see the high "art" in the use of modern technology to exactly copy our coins, as long as done by Carr that is, and do so while having such contempt to outright disgust for any other copies or even those not buying into the hypocrisy.
Actually you did, but I'm sure you won't be distracted by those little annoyances known as facts. Here is an excerpt what you said regarding your 1964-D Peace Dollars: "The first 200 minted from Die Pair 5, and all the ones before that, were all stamped multiple times (usually 4 times). The reason for that is the additional stampings helped bring up the relief while eradicating the host coin's design as much as possible (but never 100%). " Apparently it was the striking process itself (used multiple times) to eradicate as much of the host coin's design as much as possible although you engaged in prestriking flattening as well. Where did I sensationalize again? I used the word "destroy" while you use the word "eradicating." You clearly stated that the reason for your striking process was to help "bring up the relief while eradication the host coin's design as much as possible..." @desertgem, I respect you as a neutral party. Was my initial quote inaccurate as charged? (Both quotes are provided above). @C-B-D
@dcarr: What were the several labor-intensive flattening processes you refer to below?: "But suffice to say that they go through several labor-intensive processes to flatten them and reduce the diameter slightly. As I said before, no metal is ever added or removed."
Well this certainly turned into an elementary school playground rather quickly. On the bright side readers are now able to see that these arguments are based on feelings and emotions not facts. By the way copper and steel off metal dates do in fact exist, there is nothing fantasy about them
But to borrow from Carr, were these lawfully "issued" or "validly issued" by the government (not that it matters because it is irrelevant anyway)?
What that you are fine cherry picking people, but you are so overly concerned that someone could be taken advantage of? Yes I see the hypocrisy in that. Honestly sometimes lol is all that can really be said to some of these comments
