Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Digenes, post: 702323, member: 16318&quot;]Looking through this thread and being fairly new to looking for errors, this thread actually made me laugh.&nbsp; I don&#039;t know how many times someone has posted a coin and those arguing that this coin can be listed as a poorman&#039;s doubled die is ok, will tell that person no that coin is not a doubled die but mechanical doubling or die deterioration on any other year.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Using their own argument that because this coin was named a poormans doubled die, why not just call every coin with mechanical doubling or die deterioration a poorman&#039;s doubled die.&nbsp; Why? Because we are taught that they are not, and now know better. That they are what they are, just mechanical doubling or die deterioration, and that is exactly what this coin is.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Heck I have seen people post a 1955 mechanical doubling or die deterioration cent on this board and have yet to hear anyone say oh that is a Poorman&#039;s Doubled die.&nbsp; They just pop up and say nope not the 55 doubled die that is mechanical doubling or die deterioration. Funny how so many on this board like to have it both ways, when the situation suits them</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Dave[/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