Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Eduard, post: 437314, member: 8959&quot;]Conder, thanks for confirming the attribution. The double leaves at OF are only barely visible but definitely there.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>You are right, i meant to say &quot;Reverse of&quot; and not &quot;Head of&quot;.&nbsp; I am glad you caught that one. </p><p><br /></p><p>Regarding whether this is a reverse of 1797 or 1794, i admit i am a bit confused: Breen lists S-102 as a Reverse Type of 1797.&nbsp; However, both Heritage and the Stacks catalogue of the John Whitney Walter Collection (&quot;Mr. 1796&quot;,&nbsp; May 1999) describe S-102 as being of the Reverse Type of 1794.&nbsp; Which is correct?&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Thanks for your comments!</p><p>Ed[/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