Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2599133, member: 1892&quot;]Fair. </p><p><br /></p><p>I regularly see coins whose flaws - if they exist - are at the level where I must question whether what I see is appropriately defined as a &quot;flaw&quot; or not. Indeed, whether the original designers and creators of the die could so define it. For me, the point at which those definitions govern is where 70&#039;s begin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Although I wholly blame TPG&#039;s for the &quot;hype&quot; surrounding 70&#039;s (which, for clarity&#039;s sake, I&#039;m sure we agree are only to be found with Proofs and NIFC coinage), I still think it somewhat coincidental that they came about at the same time in that it&#039;s doubtful the Mint was capable of producing them repeatably (as opposed to accidentally) before the advent of TPG&#039;s.</p><p><br /></p><p>On the flipside, it&#039;s I who am the silly one for attempting to force a definition of what constitutes a 70 from someone who doesn&#039;t believe they exist. <i>Mea culpa</i>. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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