Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;RonSanderson, post: 3281287, member: 77413&quot;]I have to agree, sadly, but I completely agree.</p><p><br /></p><p>On the other hand, let&#039;s focus on the &quot;well struck&quot; part of your comment. The reverse, in particular, shows details that match up well with this 1951 proof. The walls of Monticello are supposed to show the texture, which I assume represents stucco or plaster on the walls. In some areas the 1984-D reverse even surpasses this early proof (for example, the left side of the porch and the railings around the roof).</p><p>[ATTACH=full]867463[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>I may repost this reverse again to compare to the intentional cameo proofs that were produced for the 80&#039;s. The cameo effect comes at the expense of fine detail. For me, the cameo surfaces are nowhere near as appealing as the reverse shown here.[/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