Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;charley, post: 8354871, member: 5372&quot;]On the CU Forum....specifically the HPA Thread....Captain Henway had bumped the thread. It had been idle for a while.</p><p><br /></p><p>I made the admittedly probably coincidental leap that it may be because of the recent posts here.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Bump tickled a question to Captain Henway from Nysoto, as follows:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot; I have a question for @Cpt.Henway. Some early U.S. coins are overstrikes of other coins, such as some half cents. These are die struck products that become US Mint coins, and the source of the planchet, whether a prepared blank or a previously struck coin, have no bearing on the final product-as in a US Mint half cent that could retain part of the design of the overstruck coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>For the Hobby Protection Act, why would a die struck product be considered an alteration, if the source of the material could either be a rolled blank or a previously struck coin, when the final die struck product is a copied US Mint design?</p><p><br /></p><p>I realize experts could tell the difference of an overstruck coin from the edge and possible letter ghosting, but in the context of &quot;Hobby Protection&quot; how could a novice tell the difference from online auction images? &quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Captain Henway has not had the opportunity to respond yet, but when he finds the time, it would be of interest to this thread, I am certain, especially since it touches on the work and studies of Mr. Young.</p><p><br /></p><p>I would be interested in the commentary from Captain Henway, and I would think it would be helpful to other members. There are actually 2 interesting questions by Nysoto., btw, and both are thought provoking.</p><p><br /></p><p>Truth in editing: changed &#039;foe&#039; to &#039;for&#039;.[/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