1971 D half

Explain this

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What exactly are you referring to?

 

Well .. start by looking at the last T

 

Not a doubled die or any other type of error. Thanks.

 

Not seeing a doubled die from the pics provided...maybe a little too much glare while looking through your scope?

 

Please explain the particulars of your glare assessment.

 

When I look at this photo it really hurts my eyes.

Larry Nienaber

 

Then take the mixing spoon out of your cocoa before drinking it.

 

"thanks" ?? thanks?? what kind of patronizing dribble is that ??

 

Nice of you to chime in, in such a clueless manner

 

Just report his insults and move on.

 

Awordcreated, if you are going to post and ask "Explain this", it is on your head to answer technically ( and not personal) if you disagree, or completely ignore and not answer at all, if you can't think of any technical answers . People have a expectation to having a thought out answer expressed, not just for you, as CT owns the thread, without being hit with the non-coin ,personal comments. See you PM.


it is not a DD.

 

Being accused of "light trickery" is a libelous personal attack founded solely in the ignorance of the accuser. Are you suggesting that is allowed but a response to it is not?

 

I did not see a post that said you were engaging in light trickery. I saw a post that mentioned glare, and I saw a post saying that glare was a form of light trickery. If someone had said you purposely use light trickery to push your point, I would have had problems with them also.

 

desertgem, he is talking about a conversation we had on another thread. At that time I wasn't actually accusing him of purposely trying to trick us with the lights. I just said "light trickery" instead a glare, and he assumed I was making accusations. He seems to get offended by anything I say, and a lot of others also. Sorry, I will refrain from posting on his threads in the future.

 

Thanks Gem, Perhaps you can fix post 10, it makes it look as if I said all that other stuff, and then consider who did say that - effectively claiming I was doing a fraud.

I see it has already been edited but I missed the original content and now it is just wrong.

 

Why don't you try restating your first post, explaining what the coin is denom/date/mm, etc. and what you see and what you think it is, and ask the question you wish , eliminating replies such as posts 8,9,11.

If you or anyone wants help in this forum area, they have to participate by giving as much info as possible. Some want a specific answer only and are defensive in their replies. These individuals cause their own problems. Small amounts of sarcasm ( in the mods opinion) or friendly teasing can be acceptable, but prolonged, it will draw points.
Some just want the attention that such remarks and attitudes can bring, but they can also bring the attention of the mods. Play nice. Trash coins but not individuals.
Jim.

 

So gem, what exactly was post 10 originally, and why do you let it look as if all that stuff was said by me? FIX IT. Why did you mod it to make his statement appear to be mine?

I'll guess nobody complained about post 8 poking fun following the joke in post 7.

Post 9: You don't recognize how found's "thanks" was loaded??

and in 11 you think it wrong for me to call out the claim of light trickery?

Trashing me (trickery) is not trashing a coin - get it?

 

Dude, I promise, the first time I said light trickery I was talking about LIGHT, not a human. If you will go back and look, I never said you were trying to trick us with light. I said light trickery. I then posted a pic that I took that shows what I am talking about and wrote, "see, light trickery." Do you think I would accuse myself of trying to trick you guys? C'MON MAN. Why are you so bitter toward me and others that are just trying to help?