Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 26416830, member: 27832&quot;]I wish someone would do a large-scale study on this. My impression has been that rarities did NOT commonly get attention and get set aside <i>in that era</i>, and that as a result their representation in dateless/restored coins is in closer proportion to their actual montages. </p><p><br /></p><p>Notable exceptions include the 1883 No Cents nickel, which is one of the most common coin in that series in higher grades, and the 1950-D nickel. Both of those got set aside in bulk. </p><p><br /></p><p>In contrast, look at the 1916 SLQ. It had a very low mintage, and I&#039;m sure collectors at the time were aware of it. But it&#039;s still not unusual to find 1916 examples among dateless Type I SLQs, identifiable by other design points. That tells me that many if not most of them <i>did</i> circulate enough to lose their dates. My guess is that it would be the same with the early Buffalo keys.[/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