Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2825732, member: 1892&quot;]Yes, but we&#039;re positing this as a clash, not a strikethrough; the latter won&#039;t end in a positive on the coin. It had to be hammered <b>into</b> the die.</p><p><br /></p><p>The reverses of all three coins now presented are the same die, evidenced by the die crack thru the right-hand star into the O of DOLLAR. Oddly enough, your OP coin <i>appears</i> to be the <b>earliest</b> reverse (from the progression of that crack) and the <b>latest</b> obverse (from the size of the cud). There&#039;s a lot of room for interpretation due to differing photography procedure, though, and I&#039;m discounting that appearance as such as you&#039;ll see. Obviously all three share the same die pair. I feel your OP coin has circulated; look at the highest line of the (viewer&#039;s) left leg of it compared to how the lighting of the PCGS coins show it - the OP coin is noticeably flatter there while the other two show curvature, while seeming of similar strike quality otherwise. We could think the cud on the OP coin has been flattened by circulation into appearing larger than the other two.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is no way to remove the mark on the neck via polishing. Die wear over a number of strikes could, but it&#039;s hard to believe sufficient strikes would have elapsed between the OP coin and the other two without any further progression of either visible die deterioration or cracks.</p><p><br /></p><p>This one is kinda cool. Lots to think about. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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