Because you posted that info without making any comment. So, I'm trying to elicit a response from you. What are your thoughts? Chris
Perhaps it's time to change. Anyway, I fail to see the purpose of starting any thread without commenting on the purpose of the thread. I have the same misgivings when someone posts the photos of a coin and asks, "What do you think of this?" Period! "Well, I don't know! Yes, it's a coin! Yes, it's round! Yes, it appears to be metallic! Yes, it appears to have been struck in 19xx! What else would you like to know?" For all we know, He's just checking to make sure his computer is working. Chris
Its a coinweek article. I have no opinion on 1969 quarters because i have no expertise on them or real interest in them. Do you collect modern coinage?
Ruben, all you had to say was, "I thought someone might find this article of interest." That would have sufficed, rather than expecting some of us (me included) to read your mind. Yes, I do collect some (not all) of the moderns, mostly in high-grade MS business strikes. Thanks for clearing it up. Chris
Great article. Nice to see cladking get mentioned. I have a number of high quality 1969 quarters...not sure if they would grade 66 or above though. Maybe? TC
Next time I have my quarters in hand I will check my 1969. My clad quarters are generally nice but I will look close at that one. Maybe I will send it in.
Took me a while to find mine. The "search" is always a large part of my fun. I was frustrated that so many of the Bowers comments were generic too. I Appreciate this post. Thanks!
