Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mlov43, post: 8028253, member: 16729&quot;]Thanks for explaining it, Doug.&nbsp; ...Their &quot;recognized varieties.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Got it now.</p><p><br /></p><p>I suppose I can understand why they take this conservative approach, ...but when confronted with the obvious evidence of two hubs (of which the coins made from both can be EASILY found), I still have questions about it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Okay, so:</p><p><br /></p><p>I guess they do this just so that they don&#039;t get caught attributing something that might end up being fake, or that there will later emerge OTHER logotypes of the 1969 date on Five-Won coins and then have to backpedal?</p><p><br /></p><p>I also detect that they can easily attribute &quot;mint errors,&quot; but not &quot;evidence of hub/die differences,&quot; right?&nbsp; Any attribute originating further back in the minting process <b>before the striking of the coin in the coining press</b> is a little ...shall we say... controversial?</p><p><br /></p><p>I wonder why?</p><p><br /></p><p>However, doubled dies receive sweetheart treatment by the TPGs, don&#039;t they?&nbsp; If I had an obvious doubled dies coin (replete with &quot;notching&quot; and the dizziness you get by looking at the coin), they&#039;d jump all over that wouldn&#039;t they?&nbsp; NGC already attributed a doubled dies 1968 One-Won.[/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