Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="The_Cave_Troll, post: 70557, member: 1674"]hmmm, I've edited my post to say "very likely illegitimate".  That statement leaves the door open for an unknown marriage or a very good copy. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie11" alt=":rolleyes:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> My statement is now accurate, as attribution (or the failure of my attribution attempt) will VERY LIKELY (although not definately) give an answer to the authenticity of the coin. Now, as for your buddy, I don't know him so I have no idea whether he has the credentials to authoritatively state that a new BH die marriage has been found, so I won't comment on that, but what I will say is that since the second edition of Overton (1970) there have been very few new marriage discoveries (3 total, IIRC), so while the coin in this post MAY be a new marriage, it is VERY unlikely. Speedy, I'm suprised at you.  You usually do a good job of trying to keep people from having unecessary/misguided hope that their coin is unreasonably valuable, but now all of a sudden you proclaim that even if someone researches this coin a little, that research is pointless since the coin may be some new variety.  That's the same as telling someone that their 1975 aluminum cent might be a real new variety even when all known pieces are dated 1974.  While it MAY be true it is so unlikely that it is misleading to say that.[/QUOTE]