Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Leadfoot, post: 966679, member: 2972&quot;]You are so wrong.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>One simple example that cannot be debated that shoots a hole in your argument:&nbsp; Adjustment marks.</p><p><br /></p><p>By your explanation (which is incorrect in the way it describes the way metal flows into a die, IMO), they would be obliterated.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet they are not -- even on high points.</p><p><br /></p><p>While much of your explanation holds truth, the fact is that there are aspects of a coin&#039;s planchet that are simply &quot;pushed&quot; into the die and don&#039;t flow.&nbsp; When these areas aren&#039;t fully impressed bythe die, then the imperfections from the planchet often show through in the struck coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>It was, IMO, the case in the Jeffs, and it might be the case with the Lincoln above.&nbsp; Frankly, I don&#039;t follow Lincoln&#039;s closely enough to be sure, much less the 2010 issue, but you sure do see this plainly evident in the earlier copper which I do follow quite closely, as you do with the Jeff (another series I&#039;ve collected for a long time).&nbsp; Bottom line:&nbsp; Planchet characteristics do show through in the as-struck coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>It sill surprises me that a numismatist of your experience could be so stalwart in defending your (IMO incorrect) position.[/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