Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 4670991, member: 24314&quot;]Thanks for sharing your research with us.&nbsp; You have produced a very entertaining video with a little more value than the usual stuff seen on the internet.&nbsp; I&#039;ll suggest you make a few corrections if you produce an update.</p><p><br /></p><p>1.<span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"> None of these coins were ever certified as genuine by any authentication service</span>.&nbsp; That&#039;s because at the time there was only one authentication service and we exposed the coins as counterfeits.</p><p><br /></p><p>2. The &quot;mark&quot; has a virtually horizontal base line with a closed loop above.&nbsp; It looks nothing like a GR.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Mint director never saw the discovery pieces.&nbsp; <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">The &quot;mark&quot; got its name from Charles Hoskins, the director of the authentication service</span>.</p><p><br /></p><p>3.&nbsp; The coins were not produced in a mold.&nbsp; While the Franklin Mint could have produced the counterfeit by making a TRANSFER DIE from a genuine coin <b><i>as was done to make these fakes</i></b>, I find it very unlikely that any of their resources or their employees were involved.&nbsp; Therefore It is more likely that Kilroy made them than the Chief Engraver.&nbsp; Counterfeiting is a serious business.</p><p><br /></p><p>4.&nbsp; It would be interesting to analyze the actual fineness of these fakes.&nbsp; We never did.&nbsp; I should suspect they may not be .900 fine due to their poor color.</p><p><br /></p><p>IMO, there is a more plausible theory that was discussed in length on the Collectors Universe US Coin Forum.[/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