Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;bikergeek, post: 13742126, member: 112428&quot;][USER=105571]@Publius2[/USER] if you ever get to KC again let me know! Regarding the rev G reclassification, the jury&#039;s still out for me too. I even have the advantage of owning one of those clashless 1830 LM-1.1s and will put the pics below. But my question is, could it be that there&#039;s a completely clashless 29 13.1, then 30 1.1, and then a 29 13.2 where clashing first occurs, finally followed by the 30 1.2 where the cud happens? To answer that would require my peeping at a lot of coins/hi-res pics. I&#039;ve been saving images off the internet but the quality (and grade) is pretty variable.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m in frequent contact with Richard and am in fact assisting him in this year&#039;s census collection, which is a very interesting task! But although we talk a lot, we haven&#039;t met in person yet, and even if you guys get together at FUN I won&#039;t be there for the, uh, fun. My own 1829 LM-13.1 is a very clean coin so I need to be educated on how to prove (if possible) that it came later than my 1830 LM-1.1. That might seal a conclusion for me. I just haven&#039;t done the legwork on this yet, and I think it&#039;s not a hill that Richard will die on, so he&#039;s not foot-stomping it. These things take time. Now, without further chatter, here&#039;s the 1830 LM-1.1 NGC/CAC 65PL. (My own pics, since PCGS didn&#039;t elect to cross it at 65PL so it&#039;s not in my reg set, nor true-viewed; I don&#039;t know if they dispute the PL or the 65 or both...)</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1530367[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1530368[/ATTACH][/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