Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Laplion, post: 8647907, member: 102925&quot;]Thanks paddyman98, I understand that you are correct in your assessment but I really can&#039;t see the difference between many of the &quot;worthless&quot; vs. &quot;collectable&quot; examples, even after spending considerable time looking at the samples shown by Ken Potter in a link I followed in a post in this forum by jtwax.</p><p><br /></p><p>For instance, in reference to instances of collectable doubling, Ken Potter says <b><font size="5">&quot;</font>In many cases you will note distinct areas of separation between the images even if only in the finer details such as the serifs of characters.&quot; </b><font face="Arial"><font size="5">If you look at the number 2 in the 1962 image you can see distinct separation in the points of the serifs yet, it is classified as worthless doubling. It is quite confusing.</font></font></p><p><font face="Arial"><font size="5"><br /></font></font></p><p><font size="3"><b><u><b>Collectable Forms of Doubling</b></u></b></font></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1518355[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1518356[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p><font size="3"><b><u>Other Forms Of Doubling</u></b></font></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1518353[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1518354[/ATTACH] </p><p><b>All photos by Ken Potter. © Ken Potter 1992-2003.</b></p><p>[/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