Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2412964, member: 19463&quot;]Never being one to accept the Crawford rejection, I am always glad to see any example of something that shows &#039;all&#039; is a dangerous word.&nbsp; However, I also would need to see if there is any possibility that any (even all???) of the rare issue was made by overstriking earlier coins which may or may not have been sorted properly to eliminate fourrees.&nbsp; Certainly a coin worn as much as this example would be hard to classify one way or the other but if even one of the known examples showed even a slight ripple in the design that could have been from an undertype, the possibility of &#039;accidental&#039; fourrees remains.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I have another problem with the concept of &#039;official&#039; when it comes to Republican coins.&nbsp; Too many issues were controlled by individuals in some position of authority.&nbsp; What evidence do we have on the limitations placed on them when it comes to contracting out coinage issues?&nbsp; Were all Republicans supposedly struck by the same workers as the previous year&#039;s moneyers or was it up to a moneyer to find and oversee a producer of his designs?&nbsp; The styles and workmanship qualities suggest that some were produced with more technical ability than others.&nbsp; When we have more than one &#039;official&#039; producer of coins in operation, we open the possibility of not only money of necessity but money of opportunity to make the other guy look bad.[/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