Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;tanner520, post: 104049, member: 1613&quot;]Exactly right...first strikes are the primary amount (whatever the value of that variable is determined to be) of coins struck with a pair of dies.&nbsp; That is also the Mint&#039;s definition.&nbsp; There is even an article in the latest issue of Coin World on page 32 explaining this definition and what the Mint defines it to be.&nbsp; However, the TPG&#039;s created their own definition for their own convenience to try to somehow justify what they&#039;re calling these coins.&nbsp; Since they can&#039;t really verify whether a certain set of coins were struck first or last, they just use the date stamp on a check-tab.&nbsp; Ridiculous.&nbsp; They knew they couldn&#039;t really validate whether the coin was a &quot;First Strike&quot; so they decided to &quot;redefine&quot; this title.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, my issue is really two-fold:</p><p>1. I&#039;d like an explanation from the TPG&#039;s as to why they decided to use a completely different definition for this infamous two-word phrase and what basis they feel justifies designating a coin &quot;First Strike&quot; using the REAL definition, not their own.</p><p>2. My more pressing concern is the fact that they put this title on the label of their holder with no real way to substantiate the designation.&nbsp; So, this brings in integrity issues.&nbsp; If some parts of the label have unverifiable/uncertifiable designation, then what on that label is valid.&nbsp; Either all data is valid and authentic or none of it is.&nbsp; There&#039;s no &quot;trust this part but not this part.&quot;&nbsp; I refuse to overlook the &quot;First Strike&quot; designation as just marketing and still hold the other designations on that label as authentic.&nbsp; There better be valid justification for all of it.[/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