Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;CoinCorgi, post: 23920150, member: 88934&quot;]Not too sure that this correlation/diagnostic is correct...I will get back after reviewing.</p><p><br /></p><p>edit: I stand corrected. The Type II letters are thinner than the Type I letters. The difference is not as drastic (or reliably distinguishable IMHO<span style="color: #ff0000">*</span>) as the 1976 Type I and II letter thickness differences.</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">*note that the three images presented at the Numista link provided above seem to show that the Type II letters are thicker than Type I, which supports my thinking that it is an unreliable diagnostic.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">Numista Type I...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">[ATTACH=full]1547161[/ATTACH] </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">Numista Type II...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">[ATTACH=full]1547160[/ATTACH] </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">Numista Type III...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">[ATTACH=full]1547159[/ATTACH] </span>[/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