Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Marshall, post: 7511233, member: 21705&quot;]This is not directly related to your question, but is indirectly related. First is an example of a basic attribution mistake by a TPG. I&#039;ve seem many, but this is convenient because it&#039;s in my collection:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1297685[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>This is a BASIC Type ID error. It is called a Reverse of 94, when in fact it is a Reverse of 97. I suspect the error was caused by the Red Book emphasis on the single leaf/double leaves distinction between Reverse of 94 and Reverse of 95 and the later combining of both types as Reverse of 96. The attributor was likely an excellent researcher who is just unfamiliar with the series and did not realize the Reverse of 97 also has double leaves.</p><p><br /></p><p>The second thought is that these high quality counterfeits/fakes may place an even greater premium on the provenance of the coin. Being able to locate past sales and a pedigree might add more value than it has in the past.[/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