Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 2801950, member: 112&quot;]Glad you liked it <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; Darek and I spent a lot of time writing that series of articles. But the primary point of part 3 that I wanted you to understand is that there are a lot of books, and or articles as well as coin catalogs, that contain bits and pieces of bad information. And once that bad info is written/recorded/reported once, just about every article, catalog, or book that is subsequently written will repeat that bad information. With the net result being that bad info is accepted as fact and accurate - when it isn&#039;t at all.</p><p><br /></p><p>And it is only with detailed and painstaking primary research that this bad info can be ferreted out, exposed, and corrected.</p><p><br /></p><p>All of that said, does the coin you posted about really exist ? Or is it one of those that never did really exist, but was mistakenly reported to exist by somebody who knows how long ago ?</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t know the answer, won&#039;t pretend to know the answer, for this one. But what I have found over the years both by teaching my students and by helping Darek write the books on ducats and all of the articles and presentations is that there is a lot of bad info out there. And it gets repeated over, and over, and over again. </p><p><br /></p><p>So that report by Numista that you mentioned, well it might just be true. But it will take some primary research to find the answer. Who knows, you might be the one who can do that <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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