Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bmmartin, post: 4395934, member: 98956&quot;]I&#039;m sure that among those with years of collecting knowledge, someone knows a contributor or two.&nbsp; It&#039;s easy enough to verify.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t claim to have years of knowledge, just years of collecting.&nbsp; I figured it was best to ask an expert, so I asked Mr. Fivas.</p><p><br /></p><p>So unless they change their mind over at Whitman prior to publishing...</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I think my longwinded gibberish is evidence of joining a discussion.&nbsp; Flippant or dismissive one-line comments are not discussions.</p><p><br /></p><p>But I agree, most just leave and never come back.&nbsp; I have my 40 year old pants on. How did you know that? Did you stalk my profile?&nbsp; Do you want me to take the off?&nbsp; I&#039;m blushing, just kidding. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve read quite a few threads on here; I find some of the comments amusing TBH.&nbsp; But there&#039;s two issues: (1) There are quite a few where the rude comments are the first comments; dismissive brief sentences, and (2) These aren&#039;t always &quot;facts&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Let&#039;s use this thread as an example.&nbsp; After a quick response from another poster, [USER=44615]@paddyman98[/USER] starts us off with a classic example of a flippant remark.&nbsp; He does the same in the other thread as well.</p><p><br /></p><p>Pareidolia and Error get tossed around on both threads.&nbsp; I can agree with the first word on the other thread, but it was used on this thread here.&nbsp; Pareidolia is not a fact for this thread; it&#039;s repeating something the poster clearly read on another thread.&nbsp; This is what is referred to as willful blindness; there&#039;s clearly something that resembles a &quot;5&quot; on the photo that [USER=97879]@Nick57[/USER] posted.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for &quot;Error&quot; as a fact, it clearly isn&#039;t now.&nbsp; Yet, early on both threads, it was stated as fact.&nbsp; It wasn&#039;t.&nbsp; It was also stated as &quot;fact&quot; that all the experts have agreed that it is nothing.&nbsp; Again, not a fact.&nbsp; Two members here that IMO are very knowledgeable have stated that it&#039;s a variety.&nbsp; They brought up significance and value, but that wasn&#039;t the issue at hand, correct?&nbsp; I believe those are interesting topics, but the OPs both just wanted to know if they had the variety.</p><p><br /></p><p>A factual answer would have been &quot;yes&quot; given that many posters mentioned the discoverer&#039;s Youtube video.&nbsp; Clearly, as [USER=84179]@Oldhoopster[/USER] points out, there are more than a couple out there, with the same identifiers.</p><p><br /></p><p>Sometimes people don&#039;t want to hear when they&#039;re wrong.&nbsp; I get it.&nbsp; Kitty get my pot pie.</p><p><br /></p><p>But sometimes people have the humility to admit when they&#039;re wrong.&nbsp; Again, have you noticed that NGC decided to attribute the Superbird sometime after my gibberish on the other thread?&nbsp; I think I pointed out that they attributed one coin with a lint mark, but excluded the Superbird as a lint mark...&nbsp; from 2007-2019. Probably just a coincidence.&nbsp; But respect for correcting their inconsistency on the topic.&nbsp; They could have taken off the other lint mark coin and I would give that respect, too.</p><p><br /></p><p>I guess I&#039;m being somewhat rude in the face of people incessantly arguing the facts.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here are the facts summed up:</p><p><br /></p><p>(1) The coin is a variety, not an error.&nbsp; There are at least 5 that we know of that share the same characteristics (this number is kept low so that this statement can be maintained as fact).</p><p><br /></p><p>(2) The coin [USER=97879]@Nick57[/USER] posted has the distinguishing mark.&nbsp; There is a mark that resembles the number &quot;5&quot; on the cheek.</p><p><br /></p><p>(3) The OP is NOT suffering from a case of pareidolia.&nbsp; There&#039;s clearly a mark there, whether or not it looks like a &quot;5&quot; or not, and he noted that it matches another coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>(4) I agree with [USER=84179]@Oldhoopster[/USER] that it&#039;s likely a lint-mark.&nbsp; However, that&#039;s my opinion and I&#039;m not ruling out any other possibility.</p><p><br /></p><p>(5) Last, but not least...</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s not a rumor, it&#039;s a fact unless they decide to remove it.&nbsp; I just felt that those with years of knowledge probably knew someone that could easily confirm this information.&nbsp; The relevant part of the answer I was given was &quot;it&#039;s already in.&quot; This answer was confirmed.&nbsp; There&#039;s more, but that&#039;s not relevant to this post.</p><p><br /></p><p>Someone will probably argue this last fact all they want, but again, if they have years of knowledge (and I&#039;m assuming connections), they can easily confirm if this variety will be in the CPG or they can ask Mr. Fivas himself.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>If I&#039;m wrong about any of my facts, my pants are big enough where I will eat crow AND apologize for throwing out false knowledge.&nbsp; I&#039;m humble enough to do that.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the face of these facts, do those that posted erroneous information have big enough pants to admit they were wrong?</p><p><br /></p><p>In closing:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You like apples?&nbsp; Cheers, mate![/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