Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ToughCOINS, post: 2606053, member: 20480&quot;]You are mistaken Dave . . . that is the very same coin, albeit in a different holder.&nbsp; Evidently NGC was less conservative than PCGS.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think any numismatist, reasonable or not, would first question the lack of central detail in comparison to that in the peripheries.&nbsp; However, one intimately familiar with the coinage of this minter might have foreknowledge of mint-specific die preparation practices, and be able to explain die wear / deformation which the uninitiated, myself included, would not.</p><p><br /></p><p>Being unfamiliar with those practices, but understanding metalworking in general, I can only speculate the following:</p><p><br /></p><p>I suspect that the reverse die may not have been sufficiently heat treated to obtain through-thickness hardness.&nbsp; This is very plausible because the periphery is closer to the corner intersection of both the outside diameter of the die and the engraved face, meaning more heat would transfer to and from the die at the periphery than at the center of the die if treated incompletely.&nbsp; If the reverse die was indeed insufficiently hard, the central detail may well have eroded before the peripheral detail for that very reason.</p><p><br /></p><p>Lacking knowledge of the series, this is pure conjecture, but supportable in the absence of a better explanation.[/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