Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;eddiespin, post: 24734821, member: 4920&quot;]But there you go, again. I&#039;m talking about the original Mint-seal when the bags went out from the Carson City Mint to the banks and not the Mint-seal the Mint affixed on the returned bags for storage of those bags in their vaults. And those banks didn&#039;t open all those bags they got from the Mint, and neither did all those bags all go out to the banks from the Mint, because the demand for those coins wasn&#039;t there. I&#039;m talking about those bags with the original Mint-seals, all those coins in fact were uncirculated. And that&#039;s how GSA knew. They knew it from those original Mint-seals never having been breached.</p><p><br /></p><p>Differentiate the original Mint-seals from the Mint-seals on the returned bags of coins sealed by the banks the Mint had to re-count and re-seal for storage. Those grades of those latter coins in those re-sealed bags the GSA was unsure of, but they knew those coins left and came back. That&#039;s what &quot;Silver Dollar&quot; means, they were unsure. And &quot;Uncirculated Silver Dollar&quot; means they <i>were </i>sure. Just from the seals on the bags.</p><p><br /></p><p>Have we any extant record of the GSA individually examining and grading these coins for wear and absence of wear? I&#039;m talking about record, not assumptions. One would think there would be something, somewhere, if that&#039;s in fact what they did. Nothing, anywhere, in terms of record, that&#039;s a preposterous assumption, it still seems to me.[/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