Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;TypeCoin971793, post: 3907491, member: 78244&quot;]And I never made that assumption. My statement was based on the fact that the fabric of the known specimens conforms to that of contemporary coins. Yours is markedly different and is more reminiscent of the norm from a 1000 years prior. That, to me, is significant. If ALL of the known specimens had the same fabric as yours, then I would be treating this as an exception to the contemporary norms. However, this is the opposite of the case here.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>There doesn’t need to be. The coins speak for themselves.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>And your defense are a couple privately-made coins/tokens which broke the norm. However, they were all consistent in their fabric.</p><p><br /></p><p>The point is that This COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that the accepted specimens of the type in question are consistent in style/fabric with each other and contemporary issues. This is not a fringe opinion; it is a basic fact. Everyone here can tell that there are huge and glaring differences between your coin and the accepted specimens. They are that obvious.[/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