Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 2515195, member: 112&quot;]As a generalization ? No. But I do have to wonder if that is the case here. I wonder if it is not more of a change in definitions instead of better or more accurate information.</p><p><br /></p><p>I say that because for as long as I can remember presentation pieces have never been considered to be Proofs. Which of course is why they have always been called presentation pieces. And no, presentation pieces are not business strikes either, but neither are they Proofs - and that&#039;s why they have their own, unique, name.</p><p><br /></p><p>You see this is where the problem begins, for if presentation pieces suddenly become classified as Proofs - does that mean all presentation pieces become Proofs ? Even those which were hammer struck like the early Spanish colonial pieces ?</p><p><br /></p><p>And if presentation pieces suddenly become Proofs, then does that mean that Specimen strikes also become Proofs ? </p><p><br /></p><p>These pieces have, and always have had, different names because they are different things. They are not the same, they have never been the same - so how can be the same now ?</p><p><br /></p><p>And the subject of what constitutes a Proof is not new discussion, we&#039;ve had it many times over the years. This is a more recent example of it - </p><p><a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-is-the-very-first-proof-coin-in-the-world.272358/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-is-the-very-first-proof-coin-in-the-world.272358/">https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-is-the-very-first-proof-coin-in-the-world.272358/</a>[/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