Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Rob Woodside, post: 4957923, member: 96187&quot;]Thanks John. For the most part I agree with you but here&#039;s my misunderstanding. The blunt and pointed 5&#039;s in 1965 were innocent, much like the blunt and pointed 7&#039;s in 1947. In 1965 the beads started small and due to a short die life they experimented with medium beads and found some angle too steep and so to lower it settled on large beads which had a better die life. This explains why there are no proof medium beads as it was a trial coin. </p><p>&nbsp; My only suspicion in your list is for the small bead mule with the 1966 reverse. Already in 1965 they abandoned the small beads in favour of the large. So why would they continue the small beads into 1966? To use up the small bead dies? If so why didn&#039;t they do that in 1965 before moving to large beads? I suspect, but can&#039;t yet prove that this mule was a subtle first attempt at creating a rare variety and led to creating the increasingly obvious errors of 1967. </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; If this were a detective novel where the serial killer leaves more and more clues as the story progresses, I&#039;d write that from the 1966 mule they moved in 1967 to a little more conspicuous error of die rotation with a Diving Goose. The Inverted Goose is just too good to be true, an exactly 180 degree rotation is no accidental error. If that wasn&#039;t sufficiently mocking to the authorities, I&#039;d write that they moved to an even more obvous double strike error, the Butchered Goose, but got caught before making the planchet error of a Gold Goose. It would make a great story and I wonder how much is true? Certainly some of it.[/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