Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Leadfoot, post: 979134, member: 2972&quot;]Either that, or I need a better memory.&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp;&nbsp; Tell me, which were stronger struck?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>They are planchet marks, IMO, and it is worth noting that it would also be an assumption to presume they were contact marks.&nbsp; I suppose that it&#039;s simply a coincidence that this coin, the most strongly struck one I can recall being posted, also has the fewest planchet marks.&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>As for your question... They have nothing to do with the age of the die, obviously.&nbsp; My comment was in relation to fullness of strike with a general lack of detail (i.e. older die) with clues that it was fairly well struck.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The point was this...&nbsp; Many people would look at the obverse lack of detail and presume a weak strike.&nbsp; I submit that&#039;s not at all what&#039;s going on with this coin.[/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