Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 3590133, member: 27832&quot;]Okay, I&#039;m completely unfamiliar with this series, so these may be dumb questions, but you&#039;ve aroused my curiosity.</p><p><br /></p><p>It sounds like this was previously believed to be a proof-only issue. In the previous year, there were non-proof specimen strikes, but none are known for this year, right?</p><p><br /></p><p>This one is designated <i>uncirculated</i>, but proof-<i>like</i>. Is the implication that it was struck from previously unknown non-proof dies, or from proof dies on a non-proof planchet, or something else?</p><p><br /></p><p>Or... is it <i>possible </i>that this is just another example of a &quot;mechanical error&quot; (cough), like <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-do-yall-think-of-my-new-6700-business-strike-cough-cough-washington.340497/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-do-yall-think-of-my-new-6700-business-strike-cough-cough-washington.340497/">this recent one from NGC</a>?</p><p><br /></p><p>Discovering a non-proof strike for an issue that&#039;s supposed to be proof-only is a big deal. But given the proof-vs-MS bungling by <i>both</i> NGC and PCGS that we&#039;ve seen over the last few years, it&#039;s gotten to the point where I <i>do</i> feel like we need to second-guess them...[/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