Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 1312970, member: 112"]Suppose Chris, just suppose we talking about a date instead of a mint mark. The rules are this, even the ANA rules - if you cannot clearly and positively identify a date - then it isn't. Do you think they should start labeling coins with unidentifiable dates as "date indeterminate" ? It's just like with the '42/'41 dime. There are worn examples out there that have a die chip at the top of the 2, but they sure don't label them as '42 over '41s. They label them as '42s. It's the same thing with mint marks. If you can't positively identify it - then it isn't. Or what if this were a very worn 1916, with traces of a mint mark, but not enough of a mint mark to say for sure it is an S or D. What do you call that ? Do you say it might be a D - a coin with a value that is 200 times what an S has ? No, you don't call it anything because you don't know what it is. And as for labeling it as a P - what else would you expect them to do ? There's only 2 - a P and a D so it has to be one or the other. And if you cannot be positive that it is a D, and we can't because die chips do happen, then you pretty much have to label it as a P. And I'm not trying to be argumentative either, I am merely trying to explain the reasoning as to why it was labeled as a P. And it's quite simple, could be or might be isn't good enough.[/QUOTE]