Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;krispy, post: 2130251, member: 19065&quot;]I don&#039;t think you can see how silly your reasoning is. You base this on shape and judge from that alone what is or isn’t a so called milk-spot. Upon no other investigation than an image and a circular-bias do you then suppose you’ve deduced this with absolute conviction.</p><p><br /></p><p>How does shape have anything to do with this?&nbsp; Be it a spot or a smudge of something, both were once in a more liquid state.&nbsp; Perhaps a rounder more defined circular or ovoid shape splashed or fell onto a coin at some stage of the coin’s production. Perhaps it was a liquid in full strength or of a greater viscosity allowing it to retain a more solid and circular shape. Perhaps it was a partially diluted or half rinsed away “spot” that was once more clearly roundish. If partially diluted or weaker in concentration, it may loose its shape under a rinse and become less round, taking on something like a smudge or a reticulated residue after what parts of the substance could evaporate.</p><p><br /></p><p>Don&#039;t be so superficially bound to your definition of these spots by shape. You too have presented nothing to prove that shape alone can be cited for what is or isn&#039;t related to what is a lay term, &quot;milk spot&quot;. What&#039;s next, an ellipse is not a sphere? And shall we next be told that an ovoid &quot;milk spot&quot; is not perfectly round enough to be a &quot;milk spot”, too?[/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