Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;KBBPLL, post: 8148885, member: 104064&quot;]Issue 13 (1992)</p><p><a href="https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555418" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555418" rel="nofollow">https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555418</a></p><p>Issue 14 (1992)</p><p><a href="https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555419" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555419" rel="nofollow">https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555419</a></p><p>Issue 15 (1992) - doesn&#039;t say much except &quot;more later&quot;</p><p><a href="https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555420" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555420" rel="nofollow">https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555420</a></p><p>Issue 17 is missing from the archive. Issues 18-27 are sequential and don&#039;t have anything on the topic. Issue 27 is the last one, from 1996. </p><p>I am searching NNP on &quot;Insight on Coinage: Editorial Number xx<font size="4">&quot; </font>and replacing xx. </p><p>So the &quot;more later&quot; is either in issue 17 and it wasn&#039;t archived, or perhaps the numbering accidentally skipped 17 and it was never published. The issues aren&#039;t specifically dated. </p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s an interesting story. I&#039;m curious about some details related to this discussion. In Issue 13 there were two fakes that you looked at, at ANACS. You mention that as many as 50 were circulating among dealers in 1971 at the ANA convention. You happened to have two coins to examine in 1973, one real and one fake, which led to the &quot;Omega&quot; discovery. &quot;A week or two later&quot; you received a second fake, which allowed you to compare them and discover the &quot;lint mark&quot; which was then dubbed as Omega. </p><p><br /></p><p>Then in Issue 14 you say that you received &quot;a few angry calls from dealers for causing lost sales.&quot; So it causes me to wonder if these angry dealers had submitted additional examples that were rejected, or if they were merely upset that they had some and their customers were skittish. </p><p><br /></p><p>Would you now stick with the estimate that there were suddenly as many as 50 bouncing around ANA in 1971? Would you think that there are some authenticated between 1971 and 1973 still sitting in holders? How many dealers had them at 1971 ANA and how many does &quot;a few&quot; angry ones in 1973 mean? I&#039;m trying to get a feel for whether these +/- 50 coins were concentrated among only 2-3 dealers and therefore whether they had a close connection with the source. It seems like they had two years to be putting these into the hands of collectors before word got out. [/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