Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;XanthenX, post: 3982477, member: 97195&quot;][ATTACH=full]1048502[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1048501[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1048500[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1048497[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1048494[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1048493[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve had in my keeping for some time a 1964 one cent specimen that, at first, I thought &#039;this is an excellently struck specimen&#039;; though it would certainly only grade in no higher than the AU range.</p><p><br /></p><p>Soon after I discovered the existence of the SMS coins from 1964 and upon comparison to the specimens I have collected in roll searching, I was very dumbfounded whenever I noticed some similarities between the odd specimen and the images documented on this particular variety.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have no faith that this coin in my possession could have even a remote possibility of being a coin from the few SMS coins struck in 1964, but being that this coin possesses die markers that identically match those identified as the markers that define this variety, and with the possibility of such an occurrence being one in an astronomical number; I had to share it and give you guys some laughs on this peaceful Sunday afternoon.</p><p><br /></p><p>Pictured above is my specimen. At the very top is an image of the die markers for the variety. Note how similar they are. Under direct observation its an absolute match but photographing these small details is difficult at best. </p><p><br /></p><p>Opine with your wittiest disagreements and offenses!![/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