Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2331004, member: 19463&quot;]While I agree that obverse dies lat longer than reverses, I do not think this is the entire story with Emesa where some obverse dies were used with a dozen reverses and it is more likely to find an obverse with two different reverses types than with two reverse dies of the same type.&nbsp; There has always been the question of whether the two dies might have been made of different metals but I have not seen evidence that convinces me of this.&nbsp; Finally I feel that we should have reverse dies that show a lot of wear and failure from faults if they were wearing out.&nbsp; After all this mint used that IIC die with a large hunk missing for a long time so they were not so quality conscious that they destroyed coins showing die deterioration. </p><p><br /></p><p>I am able to accept the idea that we have fewer &#039;first strike&#039; obverses since the dies last longer and Martins 6:20 proportion seems about right for the die life ratio if we assume that the layout lines and scratches only lasted a few strikes (who knows how many???). </p><p><br /></p><p>I discovered a coin with small traces of the layout circle on both sides (obv. 10 o&#039;clock; rev. 7 o&#039;clock) which one of you now owns via the JA sales.&nbsp; I am not suggesting that this makes the coin worth more but I have no problem whatsoever with everyone here bidding up JA&#039;s sales especially when they contain my coins.&nbsp; Who know what else I&#039;ll overlook?&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]472581[/ATTACH][/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