Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Julsscott, post: 3329510, member: 99258&quot;]Hello again ya&#039;ll! Thanks again fer all your input. I do appreciate it. Honestly. </p><p>With that said I feel as if I must address what seems to be a miscommunication, on my part naturally. As I said in my original post I had absolutely no presumption of discovery, made from grandeur or otherwise. I did appreciate the bluntness in the adjectives used whether the were neccessary or not. What stumped me on this coin is that I could not decipher what the mint mark was or intended to be. The title of my post is where I believe I went wrong. Using the word strange obviously implied a description I did not intend, although i must say that the mark that is currently there is still strange to me. If it was at the mint or thru circulation was a not my concern, I knew as many of you pointed out not of value other then its face. Also my response to the first reply I still stand by. The way he described what possible damage it could have received did not fit what I was looking at. It certainly was not smashed, the type of damage is still unclear, and if I had a magic wand I just might find he was correct and eat my words...lol. anyways, this is getting to winded..So I leave you with this: i promise to be more clear I the future on what it is I&#039;m asking and limit my vocabulary to fit a more mainstream definition. </p><p>Thank you again fer your time and efforts in helping me thru this crazy quest of finding a piece of history...your still my favorite forum and I do apologize if I ruffled any feathers. I bid you all a good day.[/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