Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gorham_Collector, post: 26130756, member: 133572&quot;]The article coin is the same one that is on cuds on coins as well and it’s flipped down and up instead of left and right.</p><p>And the coin imaged in the article is the one I’ll post again here. And the flip is marked with a line as well. The obverse is correct then flipped you get this.</p><p>Weird I wonder if the people writing up the article provided the degree and did it with there pics.</p><p>The cuds on coin coin and the article coin r the same coin.</p><p>So that’s weird.</p><p><br /></p><p>i just noticed something. The coin images used are not of that of the rotation listing on cuds on coins.</p><p>The images used in the article are that of the 2016 retained cud with no rotation.</p><p>So it’d be safe to say it most likely 115° and not 95 bc the right coin wasn’t used for the article.</p><p>first screenshot is that of the retained cud no rotation but the same reverse used in the article.</p><p>Doesn’t state a rotation</p><p>Second screenshot is the retained cud which states the rotation which is about 115° when measured CCW.</p><p>So it doesn’t matter bc the original images for the article aren’t even that of the actually retained cud with the rotated reverse that is stated.</p><p>They’re using the images of the 2016 with just the retained cud… </p><p>I’m gonna stick with 115° for the actually rotated one now. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1667647[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1667648[/ATTACH][/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