Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Conder101, post: 1224101, member: 66&quot;]I think the 56 might be a proof, I didn&#039;t think the 58 was but the more I look at it the more I&#039;m not sure.&nbsp; Photographs of brilliant proofs if not shot well can be deceiving.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I will go further than that and say they often have NO contrast between the fields and devices.&nbsp; The sharpness of strike is often used to describe a proof as well but that can be a problem too.&nbsp; The 1950&#039;s proofs often had no contrast but were sharp, but by the early sixties they were taking on a different , almost melted look.&nbsp; Look at the 1962 posted earlier.&nbsp; There is nothing &quot;sharp&quot; looking about it.&nbsp; It has almost a &quot;liquid&quot; look to it with the fields flowing into the designs and a certain &quot;softness&quot; to the designs themselves.&nbsp; This was because the master hubs were wearing out and the dies were being over polished and then repolished as they became worn.[/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