Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Kasia, post: 1499582, member: 31533&quot;]Rascal, </p><p><br /></p><p>I do believe you are stretching the definition of &quot;apart&quot; to favor your terminology. It really is unimportant if you want to do so, but I believe the majority of the people who use the word apart in the sense you have, in taking a coin apart, would not use the word &quot;apart&quot;; again, since the coin is a separate and total entity in and by itself, and is not composed of different parts put together to create an entity that is different and substantially improved (being the sum of its&#039; parts) over one or more items used to create it (as a planchet as opposed to separate metals being melted together to form the sheets used to put into the planchet making machine). </p><p><br /></p><p>A part indicates part of a whole that is not composed of or doesn&#039;t comprise separate parts. Even the definition you provide gives the example of a watch and a barn. Neither of those examples are whole and separate unto themselves (only one piece, as opposed to being composed of several or many pieces). </p><p><br /></p><p>Now, if you want to use a verb that indicates someone tore something apart, that could be construed as happening to one separate item, such as a piece of wood or rock, and responds to a force put on something as to cause it to split or break along it&#039;s grain or seams. A coin planchet, is in most cases different, being of a consistency that it is not generally able to be torn apart in that manner (except for some planchet errors). Cutting a solid object of that kind does not mean you are taking it apart.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now once a coin is cut into and lathed and another part of a coin is put in (such as a magicians&#039; coin), then you can take it apart. Since that is composed of more than one piece.</p><p><br /></p><p>But back to the actual act of giving information on how fakes are created (or not giving information) and whether this coin is such a fake; I think that unless you can prove that the coin has been created from more than one coin and re-assembled, as it were, then the general premise of this being a coin taken apart, the secondary images then pressed out from the inside, and the coin re-assembled, then I believe you are stretching your imagination into the realm of improbability, if not impossibility. Because even though tools are available to do so, it would really be quite difficult to do the rim again in a manner that is un-noticeable. </p><p><br /></p><p>It really is different from drilling a short hole into a nickle and inserting a plier that has a mintmark on it, spreading the pliers so that the mintmark creates metal movement on the nickel and thus creates a mintmark nickel out of one without one. Then taking care to sand down and solder up the rim so that it is difficult to tell it was done. Dimes generally can&#039;t be done that way (think trying to make a 1916 D dime from a P dime of that year) due to the reeding on the edge. It is way more complicated to try to drill that and then cover up the tracks. Instead, usually the mintmark is cut and soldered onto the dime.</p><p><br /></p><p>But I really believe that semantics aside, or even trying to be &quot;right&quot; on how you use your definitions is less important than the fact that your scenario for this coin just doesn&#039;t add up, and the fact that you say you don&#039;t want to tell others because 1) you assume most coin people already know how, and 2) if you put it out on the internet, people will just learn to get better and be fooled is kind of baloney. I personally favor knowledge over hiding knowledge.[/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