Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gorham_Collector, post: 26130929, member: 133572&quot;]I’d like to add Steve smith was listed in the coin world article as finding the 95° rotated 2016 retained cud.</p><p>Which is the coin listed on cuds on coins without the rotation listing the images add up with the zinc showing on the die break, and contact marks and environmental damage below the the U on the reverse.</p><p><br /></p><p>The 2016 retained cud with a rotation listed on cuds on coins was found by lindsey slentz. Clearly shows a 115°</p><p><br /></p><p>could there a miss communication here?</p><p>The 2016 retained cud listed on cuds on coins found by Steve smith has a 95° rotation wasn’t listed as such??? and the 115° makes it a dynamic rotation then.</p><p><br /></p><p>So there’s a 2016 retained cud with no rotation on cuds on coins listed those images are used for the coin world article and saying 95° rotation.</p><p>But the listing from Lindsey with an actual rotation listed is clearly 115°.</p><p>Is it a dynamic rotation error. What happened here .</p><p><br /></p><p>in short coinworld used the wrong coin bc the coin they imaged in the same from cudsoncoins provided by mike but not listed as a rotation on cudsoncoins. If it is a rotation at 95° it should be fixed bc we also have 115° rotation of the same coin then.[/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