Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;RonSanderson, post: 2544203, member: 77413&quot;]The more I hear, the more I like my theory. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>No way, I&#039;ve only got three of them. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie9" alt=":eek:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie9" alt=":eek:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>But I kind of approach this with Occam&#039;s razor.</p><p><br /></p><p>Everything I suggested are mechanical processes that would happen at the mint before the strike, allowing all surfaces to age and tone exactly the same for the ensuing 86 years.</p><p><br /></p><p>It also explains how the effect could be present on the edges of the coin, since the puddle of bad metal would be pooled in one side of the ingot before rolling, and could not have been forced through the ingot to the other side no matter how many rollers it passed through. When struck, the poor metal would be at the surface of only one side of the coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am still thinking this approach explains more of the visible phenomena with more economy of explanation.[/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