Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;foundinrolls, post: 796660, member: 4350&quot;]Hi,</p><p><br /></p><p>Can you post some other pictures with different lighting?</p><p><br /></p><p>Also,&nbsp; I am sorry to say that I would go with a grader that has a better track record with errors and die varieties.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I would point out that a major grader for that company wrote about a doctored coin in the Numismatist in 2009.&nbsp; It was a &quot;1910 D&quot; Lincoln cent that in his article he declared to be a 1910 with an added D.&nbsp; The writer of the article (NGC grader/authenticator) even added a line stating that he viewed the D under high magnification and could see where it was added to the field of the coin. </p><p><br /></p><p>I subsequently identified the coin as a 1940 D with an altered 4.&nbsp; The Numismatist published my images and my analysis of the coin.&nbsp; The space between the 9 and 1 of the date was way too wide on the coin shown by the &quot;expert grader&quot;&nbsp; in his article indicating the the 4 was altered.&nbsp; The Numismatist endorsed my analysis and pointed out that the previous article was wrong.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The point is that simple things get by some graders of errors and die varieties and they can have trouble with the simple stuff.&nbsp; They even claim things that are not accurate to give weight to their opinion.</p><p><br /></p><p>Anyway,&nbsp; I have my doubts about the above IHC,&nbsp; I will also say that I could be out in the ozone but the coin looks too suspicious to me.&nbsp; Even the toning looks too even and artificial.&nbsp; It is very unnatural in my humble opinion.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Thanks,</p><p>Bill[/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