Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="illini420, post: 866401, member: 19423"]Even more so, I pointed out in the other thread that "the other guy" didn't even appear to know his coin didn't have the traditional diagnostics until I pointed it out to him via private message after he posted pics on the CU Forum.  Only after that and his further review of the coin did he pursue his initial contacts with Kevin and Brian.   I agree that it's great that new dies are being discovered or re-discovered, whatever the case may be.  I also think that Kevin and/or Brian should be the only people considered for "discovery" recognition, if anyone at all deserves such recognition, since they do the nitty gritty leg work to confirm the general observations of us more casual onlookers.   I understand that in some cases there may be some financial motivation to get a coin labeled as a "discovery coin" but I'm not sure that is too significant in this case since I can't imagine that many people collecting matte proofs by die variety at this time.  Like Charmy said, it's just cool that new info is being learned or re-learned on this series and it's great there are people committed to devoting the time it takes to research these issues in depth.[/QUOTE]