Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 2501114, member: 24314&quot;]I have explained <span style="color: #00b359">my opinion</span> w/o bluster.&nbsp; Yet again, IMO you have shown nothing of substance that links the die states.&nbsp; <span style="color: #00b359">Also, NO ONE who holds the &quot;accepted belief&quot; has demonstrated how a very weak, barely-raised, something that looks like an &quot;S&quot; can become a strong, flush, sharp &quot;S&quot; in a later die state! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie50" alt=":happy:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; </span></p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ll bet I could convince a jury of numismatists (not the expert VAM collectors who just accepted what they saw in books) that the EDS/LDS&#039;s were <span style="color: #b30000">unintentionally reversed</span> by numismatists who did not know better at the time. </p><p><br /></p><p>When I started to become interested in varieties, there was a universally accepted (by the &quot;Flat-Earth&quot; folks) 1869/8 Indian cent. That was quickly corrected.&nbsp; We did it with die sates and crude overlays. IMO, the &quot;O/S&quot; is a similar case that was never tackled and corrected.&nbsp; We&#039;ll just need to see what develops.&nbsp; You are a respected numismatist.&nbsp; I&#039;m going to try to get you over to our (Lange and I) side eventually. Then we&#039;ll rope in more...<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie50" alt=":happy:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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