Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 26659256, member: 27832&quot;]If it is revealing details <i>that are present</i> (internal structure of the coin&#039;s metal), sure, it&#039;s &quot;alteration&quot; - but no more so than the wear that obscured those details in the first place.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t think anyone would say that a nickel with a restored date hasn&#039;t been &quot;altered&quot;. But the way you&#039;re using the word, and the overall tone of your message, seems to equate it with adding a non-existent mintmark or altering a 1944-D cent to a 1914-D. I certainly <i>don&#039;t</i> agree with <i>that</i> equivalence.</p><p><br /></p><p>In what sense is this <i>not</i> a <b>genuine</b> (albeit damaged) 1916-P nickel?</p><p><br /></p><p>If you don&#039;t want to collect such nickels, it&#039;s perfectly understandable. But I really don&#039;t understand your claim that this is somehow no longer a 1916-P nickel, even though it was struck at the Philadelphia mint in 1916.[/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