Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;KBBPLL, post: 25404620, member: 104064&quot;]Your overlays are useful. I think the obverse overlay might be better if you showed the denticles. For me it&#039;s easier to see the difference in the positions of the 1 side by side relative to the denticles. The two dies are very close. </p><p><br /></p><p>The BCCS reference posted earlier:</p><p><a href="http://barbercoins.org/BQ1896S.shtml" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://barbercoins.org/BQ1896S.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://barbercoins.org/BQ1896S.shtml</a></p><p>Original David Lawrence reference:</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/compguidebarb1994feig/page/n51/mode/1up" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/details/compguidebarb1994feig/page/n51/mode/1up" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/details/compguidebarb1994feig/page/n51/mode/1up</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Here the question is whether there is a 1896-P with a similar date position and whether that&#039;s really an S on the reverse. Philly coined 3.8 million so I&#039;d guess at least 20 obverse dies were used. It might be difficult to prove that this is not a Philly coin by the date position alone.[/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