Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ClairHardesty, post: 1304208, member: 34169&quot;]Sometimes (or should I say often?) single statements are wrong but Mr. Jurkowsky did say it twice, once unprompted and again when asked to confirm his initial claim so, that coupled with the fact that the sets were assembled in SF, which was sitting on an inventory of bullion SAEs (which would make it quite odd for the mint to ship in WP coins) is enough for me, every bit as good as the seal on the monster boxes. Since the bullion coins lack a mint mark, at least the reverse die has to be a bullion die and it is unlikely that die pair would get separated and mixed up. Even the 2008 reverse of 2007 wasn&#039;t made through the use of a 2007 reverse die, it was made because a 2007 reverse die was produced as part of a 2008 die pair (maybe saying that some early 2008 reverse die were produced using the 2007 reverse pattern is a better way to say that). It is not difficult to tell a bullion die from an uncirculated die under magnification, the uncirculated die have been &quot;sand blasted&quot; and the bullion die do not receive the same treatment. I must admit though that I thought we were only talking about possible differences between SF and WP bullion coins, not the differences between bullion and uncirculated coins. Bullion coins minted from fresh die resemble uncirculated coins with the naked eye but under magnification the surface differences are apparent. Of course the results of differing strike forces tend to show as well. The burnished planchets used for thee uncirculated coins actually have little effect on the finished coin surface. Their main effect is that of allowing for a more consistent finish. The die itself is primarily responsible for the uncirculated coin&#039;s surface.[/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