Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2128230, member: 28107&quot;]Reasonable minds are certainly free to differ,&nbsp; and I admit that I have my own biases.&nbsp; I also don&#039;t claim to always be correct.&nbsp; Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that I differ tremendously from his views and that we interpret information about coins differently enough that I am likely to want to view the &quot;evidence&quot; to draw my own conclusions.&nbsp; Others may opine differently.</p><p><br /></p><p>On information and belief, here are a few of his positions espoused throughout the years in his prolific postings on this forum:</p><p><br /></p><p>1 - Most marks on Morgan Dollars that are commonly referred to as bag marks are not really bag marks, but post strike damage cause by shovels/scoops at the Mint.</p><p><br /></p><p>2 -&nbsp; Die breaks and die polish lower a coin&#039;s value, pretty much always. (I&#039;m still looking for a citation on that one).</p><p><br /></p><p>3 - The so called &quot;repolished proofs&quot; of the 1950s were NOT treated to enhance cameo contrasts despite Rick Tomaska&#039;s landmark treatise, based on (among other things) expert testimony from contemporaneous Mint employees, providing otherwise.&nbsp; Moreover, the Mint didn&#039;t care about cameo contrasts until the early 1970s without interruption.</p><p><br /></p><p>4 -&nbsp; Scanners create images that are equal in quality to those taken by digital cameras (and presumably he meant DSLRs with macro lenses)</p><p><br /></p><p>5 -&nbsp; A coin doctor can effectively duplicate any form of toning he wishes faithfully and make it look like toned coin you present to him.</p><p><br /></p><p>Nothing in this post is meant to disparage anyone or their opinions.&nbsp; Everyone is entitled to their own opinions just as I am entitled to my own.[/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