Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;iPen, post: 3003421, member: 69760&quot;]It was interesting reading this old thread and the story behind the &quot;dot&quot; cent.</p><p><br /></p><p>My thinking of the Mint&#039;s rationale for marking an incuse dot on the die would be that they wouldn&#039;t release any of the dot cents minted from the suspected coin press operator. This will only make sense if the Mint secretly melted all of those dot cents, which may also explain why they aren&#039;t being discovered today. The Mint could keep this up for a week or however long they deem necessary before changing the &quot;dot&quot; die(s) to a normal one, since the Mint would be losing money as that suspect would be getting paid to essentially do nothing if the coins were to be melted. And, if the Mint wanted to be doubly sure, they&#039;d mark <i>both</i> dies at specific locations to confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that they are looking at a &quot;dot&quot; cent as opposed to an error (incuse dot marks on both dies with relief dot marks on the coin itself is not confirmed, but merely a speculative possibility). With this method, there would be no need for a tedious and costly manual count of all of the coins made by the worker. The worker was already suspected of sneaking some cents out despite the Mint&#039;s meticulous accounting measures, right? So a method that doesn&#039;t rely on counting would make more sense.</p><p><br /></p><p>If <i>any</i> of those &quot;dot&quot; cents made it into circulation through a random inspection, made public somehow by a variety collector, or otherwise found on the suspect, then they&#039;d know the Mint worker was stealing. If we do find one today, then the Mint worker was stealing. Otherwise, we can&#039;t say that he did. At least, that is the methodology that would make logical sense to me.[/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