Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 795331, member: 112&quot;]In the strict sense of the word Conder is correct. By definition a re-strike is a coin that is struck at a later date with the same dies used on the original strikes. So there would be no difference between originals and re-strikes.</p><p><br /></p><p>Other than the 1804 dollar I can&#039;t really think of any known re-strikes that have any value to speak of - over and above bullion content. That&#039;s the problem with re-strikes, they destroy any value the original coins may have had because re-strikes and originals cannot be distinguished from each other. The 1804 dollar is an exception to this rule however in that the re-strikes can be identified because the dies rusted and not all have the edge lettering.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now there may some others (re-strikes) that are valuable, just can&#039;t think of any right off. But if there are, then they will be those that were made in very small numbers, like the 1804 dollar was (15 known examples total, originals and re-strikes combined).</p><p><br /></p><p>The 1804 dollar is an anomaly. There are those who wonder why it has any value at all since it is not even a genuine coin in that it was not even made until 30 years after the date, and then later re-strikes. It is said to be a fanatsy coin even. Were it not for the historical aspects and the fact that it was made by the US Mint - it wouldn&#039;t have any value. Of course it seems that many of our most valuable coins are fantasy issues - the 1804 dollar, 1913 Liberty nickels, 1894-S dimes for example. </p><p><br /></p><p>People often use the word re-strike incorrectly. I have done it myself in this thread. For the coins we have been talking about in previous posts would not be re-strikes - they would be and are replicas.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in