Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2671342, member: 1892&quot;]I&#039;m going based on the assumption that there&#039;s no perspective distortion in the images, and since they&#039;re not square to the camera I really shouldn&#039;t be doing so, but it&#039;s all I have.</p><p><br /></p><p>Looks to be Near Date and low, C3 reverse. VAM-6 date location isn&#039;t &quot;Near&quot; enough for this one so 6 is eliminated. 23 <i>might</i> fit but none of the characteristic star doubling is visible in these images. Doesn&#039;t mean it isn&#039;t there.</p><p><br /></p><p>In other words, there isn&#039;t enough data here (or at VAMworld, for that matter) for anything like accurate attribution.</p><p><br /></p><p>The fields seem like they could be flashier than the photography shows; it might have been a PL/DMPL coin to start with and may well show reflectivity right now. With the amount of chatter, despite slightly better technical merit I&#039;m not over EF40 for 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