Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2424203, member: 1892&quot;]I get what you mean about &quot;busy;&quot; I&#039;m in the middle of 7 days in a row at work and don&#039;t have a day off until next Wednesday. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>The <b>only</b> thing that bothers me about your coin is the tested composition. I haven&#039;t looked as closely at your detail images as I can, which has to wait until tonight after work. I will be doing so.</p><p><br /></p><p>The only way to duplicate the abnormal features of a known VAM like this one in a counterfeit is a transfer die, created by taking an impression of an existing coin and building a die from that. The process is somewhat &quot;lossy;&quot; certain sharp details are inevitably lost. Otherwise, an existing &quot;good&quot; counterfeit die would have to have those details deliberately worked in by hand. And it would have had to have happened in the last ten years, which is how long this variety has been identified and public images existed, so they would have known to do it.</p><p><br /></p><p>The chances of it being counterfeit are very small to me. The more likely explanation is an inaccurate analysis from the XRF, or it&#039;s genuinely a less-accurate alloy than the Mint would usually have accepted in that era.[/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