Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;justafarmer, post: 109760, member: 3926&quot;]When CONECA removes a RPM from their listings and then later down the road re-issues the number for a new RPM qualified as a replacement?</p><p><br /></p><p>I personally would perfer the original RPM remain listed and it be qualified. With new RPMs receiving an original unique number when listed.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Another question - take the Lincoln Cent 1946-S WRPM-010 and the 1946-S WDDR-002 as examples. It&#039;s a good possibility that if you have atrributed the coin as one of these varieties that it is also the other. So how should the varieties be listed?</p><p><br /></p><p>Choose 1 of the following</p><p><br /></p><p>A) 2 listings - (WRPM-010) for the RPM collectors and (WDDR-002) for the Double Die Collectors (without regard to the different observe or reverse)?</p><p><br /></p><p>B) 3 listings - (WRPM-010 undoubled), (WDDR-002 no WRPM) and (WRPM-010-WDDR-002)?</p><p><br /></p><p>C) 4 listings - For the RPM collectors (WRPM-010 undoubled), (WRPM-010 Double Reverse) and for the Double Die collectors (WDDR-002 no WRPM, WDDR-002 with WRPM) eventhough the variety exhibiting the WRPM and WDDR is listed twice ? </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>And what about VAMs ? Do they have to issue a new listing just because later in the dies life that crack grew a little longer or healed just a bit?[/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