Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;eddiespin, post: 444601, member: 4920&quot;]Hey guys, do you think we can take another look at this one? Not necessarily those of you who have already opined, but, I&#039;m thinking, maybe some fresh blood? Let me give you the issue, so you don&#039;t have to start at the beginning. Take a look at those marks just under the nose, on the lips, and just under the bow tie. They&#039;re recessed marks (i.e., not raised...as would be expected, for example, in the case of a chipped-die). Do you see the precision of those, and the pinpoint-targeting of those? Do you see how there&#039;s nothing like those anywhere else on either side of the coin? Do you understand &quot;post-mint damage&quot; is a conclusory statement, and that, in this case, in particular, to be convincing, the statement has to be supported by some reasonable explanation as to how that &quot;damage&quot; may have happened &quot;post-mint?&quot; Let me explain that one better. If this were a scratch, everybody could see that, we don&#039;t need to know what scratched it to be able to conclude it&#039;s &quot;post-mint damage.&quot; In this case, if you can&#039;t think of anything that could reasonably have caused those marks, in those particular focal areas, in that orientation, and with that pinpoint-accuracy, that bears on the question whether or not the marks even are post-mint damage. Do you all understand this? </p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ll simplify this even further. Just tell me one reasonable way those marks could have happened post-mint. Otherwise...and, pardon me for saying so...I think that issue is still wide-open. Thanks.[/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