Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Conder101, post: 1668740, member: 66&quot;]I wish i had my copy of Numistudy up and running so I could do an exact overlay of the two reverses because I think your proposal #3 looks to be correct The reverse of 204&amp; 205 is an earlier state of the reverse of 195.&nbsp; The rev of 204/205 is said to have ME repunched but even on the early 204 all I can see of this is a lump on the top left of the M and the top of the E where it joins the serif appears to have been broken and repaired.&nbsp; That same lump on the M and repair of the E is seen on both the 205 and the 195.&nbsp; The rev of 204 comes perfect but on 205 there is a crack from the ribbon across the base of the A to the C to the middle of I.&nbsp; In the latest state that crack continues acoss the ribbon to the 0 and on down to the rim.&nbsp; That same crack, or at least one that seems identical in placement, is seen on all of the 195&#039;s as well.&nbsp; Blowing up and examining the Holmes coins shows a die clash from the head on both the 205 and the 195 running from the ribbon across the stem to the leaves below CA, but the clash is in different places where it crosses the stem and where it meets the ribbon.&nbsp; That doesn&#039;t eliminate the possibility though that the clash was polished out on the 205 rev weakening the berry right of T and then the die clashed again with either the 195 obv or 205 obv.&nbsp; The only other difference I can find is the shape of the berry right of the E in ONE.&nbsp; It is smaller and differently shapped compared to the berry on 205.&nbsp; All of the other berries are the same shape, their stems are running at the same angles and they meet the berries at the same positions.&nbsp; Polishing could explain the differences between the berries right of the E and T.[/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