Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2371086, member: 1892&quot;]We&#039;re just going to agree to disagree on this one. No hard feelings, of course, but I&#039;m never going to believe your theory <i>possible</i>, much less true in this case. Even if I could come to your way of thinking regarding the edges of the devices - and I haven&#039;t exactly ignored the fact they&#039;re not particularly deep; it just means the gap would be very small but still noticeable - it still doesn&#039;t explain how the lines stop before the devices and then jump into them full-strength. </p><p><br /></p><p>On the other hand, both of those features are <b>classic</b> signs of postmint cleaning/brushing/whatever which we&#039;ve all seen a thousand times.</p><p><br /></p><p>I challenge things, Doug. I dislike &quot;conventional wisdom&quot; and feel complacency has crept into numismatic research. It&#039;s why I take threads like this to the wall. Heck, I&#039;ve told Mike Diamond flat-out in public that I considered him wrong (I still think he&#039;s wrong about the coin we were discussing <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> ). But not this time. This stuff could only happen to those features when they&#039;re a positive, not a negative, for the exact same reason why we get grease-filled letters.[/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