Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Publius2, post: 13440664, member: 105571&quot;][USER=112428]@bikergeek[/USER]:&nbsp; Alright, I&#039;ve refreshed my memory of Mr. Meaney&#039;s proposition, reviewed the relevant passages in LM, and taken a look at my own coins and here&#039;s what I think:&nbsp; I don&#039;t have an opinion.&nbsp; Or, at least not much of one.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t think Mr. Meaney&#039;s case, as presented, is robust but he has one.&nbsp; It is mostly based on two examples of high-grade coins of an admittedly rare die remarriage, the 1830 LM-1.1 where he has not observed the clash marks reported in LM.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>In the original LM remarriage chart, the 1829 LM-13.1 is struck first during which striking the dies clash.&nbsp; The next use of Reverse G is the 1830 LM-1.1.&nbsp; But Meaney says he&#039;s got two high-grade examples of 1830 LM-1.1 which must show the clashes, but don&#039;t.&nbsp; How can this be?&nbsp; The only way this occur is if 1830 LM-1.1 actually precedes 1829 LM-13.1.&nbsp; And if that&#039;s true, then there is no distinction between 1829 13.1 and 13.2, hence the proposed modified remarriage chart</p><p><br /></p><p>I have not seen any 1830 LM-1.1 coins without the clash marks but that means nothing since I&#039;ve never seen a high-grade one in-hand nor in high-resolution digital photos.&nbsp; I just don&#039;t have enough experience to have an opinion on this.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, here&#039;s a theory with some evidence in support of it and some sound and straight-forward logic to it.&nbsp; All it takes is many more examples of 1830 LM-1.1 without die clashes to provide further support.&nbsp; Conversely, all it takes is one example of a high-grade 1830 LM-1.1 to blow the theory to shreds.</p><p><br /></p><p>Although I&#039;m not part of the inner or even outer circle of Capped Bust Half Dime experts, I have not heard anything to lead me to believe that Mr. Meaney&#039;s proposition received wide or even limited adoption and this was published in 2012.&nbsp; Also, I&#039;ve not seen anything further in the literature on this proposition.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m going to FUN next week, so I&#039;m thinking about taking the article and asking W. David Perkins about it.&nbsp; Richard Meaney might even be there.</p><p><br /></p><p>What are your thoughts on it?[/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