Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;eddiespin, post: 540597, member: 4920&quot;]OK, here it is (I&#039;m even &quot;faster&quot; than I thought <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />)...</p><p><br /></p><p>I want to see how close this &#039;40-S comes to the cream of the crop (so to speak), graded off these pics. I wish that big spot on the cheek wasn&#039;t there, but, we take them as we find them. If you have to err, please do so on the side of, the pics could be much better.</p><p><br /></p><p>Other questions:</p><p><br /></p><p>1.&nbsp; Look at that closeup of the ponytail. I believe that&#039;s just how these nickels in the &#039;40s were designed. They were designed pretty incomplete down there. Confirm or deny/explain, that &quot;incompleteness&quot; is just part of the design.</p><p><br /></p><p>2.&nbsp; Look at the mint mark in that closeup. It appears to be a RPM, with the underlying mark sneaking out just to the East. Confirm or deny/explain.</p><p><br /></p><p>3.&nbsp; Look at that closeup on the 4 in the date. There&#039;s what looks like a die chip, top-inside. There&#039;s some doubling, there, too, and it doesn&#039;t look like strike-doubling, to me. For one, it&#039;s not lateral, but rather spreads North and South. Sometimes, I think, I can even see some &quot;spread&quot; in the other numbers, too. Am I looking too hard at this? What do you think (in particular, on this 4)?</p><p><br /></p><p>4.&nbsp; Finally, this one has about half the middle-steps, but all 5 of the side-steps. I think an FS speaks just to the middle-steps, though. Is that correct? Or, do you need side-steps, too, for FS?</p><p><br /></p><p>PS:&nbsp; Now I know why you guys are nuts about these nickels (all it took was finding this &#039;40-S in this shape!).[/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