Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;krispy, post: 680171, member: 19065&quot;]No, it&#039;s obvious to me as well that elaine ignores the common courtesy to post sources along with these figures being *copied* from other published sources. Never say never. I have faith in elaine learning to offer more complete, cited data and to offer greater insight by conversing on these figures when asked about her posts. I&#039;d also like to learn about her intent in maintaining these posts, what first struck her to post them on a regular basis here, how it informs her numismatic interests and if it has any effect on her collections. However, it is also obvious to me that you only wish to argue and I haven&#039;t the time to deal with that in this forum since you do not seem constructive in your discourse.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have, its in various threads if you read and look for it instead of trying to spar about it. If you need the links provided just ask for it. That&#039;s what I asked for from elaine in past posts and in other threads when I became interested in elaines posts. </p><p><br /></p><p>Besides, you chimed in after I posed an open question to the thread addressed to elaine who offers this information to a discussion forum and should have a good idea about the inquiry. It was also open to anyone else who might know, about how and when the Mint decides to publish their production data. The question remains open, but so far no one seems to have an answer, nor speculation on the matter that they want to discuss. I doubt it&#039;s a huge enlightening answer but it seems an interesting topic related to the the figures posted in this thread. I don&#039;t mind that no one is interested in discussing it, but it certainly was not designed to turn into a argument suspecting debasement of elaine, which you have maintained when you ran to her defense.[/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