Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2599101, member: 1892&quot;]Then why do you come out with absolutes like, &quot;There is no such thing?&quot; Physician, heal thyself.</p><p><br /></p><p>Anyone who knows me well, knows I&#039;m derisive of TPG 70&#039;s. It&#039;s a crapshoot; you can see 70&#039;s in a 69 slab and 68&#039;s in a 70 slab.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>But they exist</i>, despite your absolute. PCGS is the best at identifying them, NGC is hit or miss, and nobody else seems to have the first clue. And that is holding to Cascade&#039;s standard of &quot;perfect 70&quot; as opposed to &quot;as struck.&quot; The OP coin which started all this is an excellent example; <b>the die used was not capable of striking a 70</b>.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>There is a point past which you will see things which were on the die, perfectly transposed onto the coin, and you must think to yourself, &quot;Is this a deliberate part of the design, or not?&quot; It is both counterintuitive and self-deceptive to think that it isn&#039;t_possible for a baseline, nominal planchet to receive a prototypical strike from a fresh die, and then be handled in such a fashion as to avoid damage.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is a point past which you must question if you have the knowledge or judgement to arbitrate whether the microscopic feature you&#039;re seeing is deliberate or not. You didn&#039;t design or cut the die, and have never held one under similar magnification to the images you&#039;re evaluating.</p><p><br /></p><p>My passion for this topic grew from my previous certainty that 70&#039;s didn&#039;t exist. Evidence has proved me wrong, and there&#039;s enough of that evidence out there for me to be certain that anyone who believes 70&#039;s don&#039;t exist, just hasn&#039;t done the research.[/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