Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mckinneym, post: 25322307, member: 154354&quot;]I will make one more response and then stop wasting my time on this.&nbsp; And I&#039;m sorry for whatever derisive condescension you perceived was unintentional.&nbsp; Was it my nun comment?&nbsp; That was just me trying to humorously remind everyone that it&#039;s just a hobby and not worth getting worked up over.&nbsp; (And I&#039;m pretty sure you&#039;re winning the condescension battle here!)</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, what are you talking about that I am consciously downplaying the damage and pushing some false narrative? I have never once claimed &quot;non-damage&quot; and I am struggling to understand your accusations.&nbsp; In my original post I put &#039;details&#039; in the title, specifically describe all of the damage, point out that the damage that was done to the coin reduced the value of the coin by over a factor of 2x.&nbsp; I also say that&nbsp; &quot;I personally don&#039;t find this terribly distracting&quot; and indicate that this was the only way I could afford this coin with this level of detail.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then there was some discussion about what exactly code 98 means and what tooling and &#039;devices engraved&#039; means.&nbsp; I will still claim that <i>I believe </i>what was done to this coin was not done in an attempt to increase the grade, but because it is outlining the shield, it received the designation it did.</p><p><br /></p><p>Nowhere did I claim it wasn&#039;t important.</p><p><br /></p><p>Nowhere did I claim it was not damaged.</p><p><br /></p><p>Feel free to post as long a response as you would like.&nbsp; I am turning off notification to this thread.</p><p><br /></p><p>The end.</p><p><br /></p><p>Full stop.[/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