| Author |
 Replies: 27 / Views: 3,208 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5239 Posts |
I hate to see you spend all the money you're about to just to find out it's worth only face value. There is no one here steering you wrong.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4404 Posts |
There are no reverse design variations for 1983 cents.
Rare design variations like the WAM/CAM variations of the 90s-00s happened when a reverse design intended for a proof coin was used on a business strike or vice versa, or when the previous/following year's design was inadvertently used. In 1983 they used the same reverse for proof and circulation coins, and they have not changed the design since 1974 and wouldn't until 1986. Transitional designs are impossible for 1983.
Waste your money if you want, don't be disappointed with the outcome. We tried to help.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
 Hey guys , he said no more arguments ! Some people just have to learn the hard way .  |
|
Pillar of the Community
  United States
984 Posts |
  I did a color printout and yes AM is touching, I do have a high respect to all CC members and I thank you again and you do not have to reply and I will see if Wexler can look at it at lest I'LL TRY. THANKS. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5239 Posts |
Me. Wexler is not taking attributions at this time. He's had four of my coins since January. You will need to send it to Dr. James Wiles. His address is on Variety Vista's website.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Why you're going through all of this is a mystery for sure.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
646 Posts |
The A and the M aren't even close to touching. The FG dont match RDV-006 what so ever, and the E in states is close to the S, not in between S and T. What more proof could you possibly need. There isn't a single marker on this entire coin that points towards anything other than WAM. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
505 Posts |
I see some 'after image' of the AM touching due to DDD. But no, OP, they aren't actually touching...not even close. @coop: wasn't 1992 technically the first year of Close AM? |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
1993 had the RDV:007 for all reverses. The 1994 forward proofs are supposed to be the RDV:006. Just we know how that worked out.
|
|
New Member
United States
6 Posts |
did you weigh it? 83-D could be a copper planchet. If it weighs 3.1grams you are a winner!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
505 Posts |
Coop, yes that's true, but technically there have been 12 1992 Close AMs. 4 1992-P and 8 1992-D
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
But when they refer to the 1988 RDV-006, they call it the reverse of 1989. Even though some had come out on the previous year. Same for the 1992 with the reverse of 1993 Close AM. That is the full year the close 'AM' came out. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5239 Posts |
It's as simple as this, he thinks he has something and after he spends the $18 to have it attributed then he can tell us what Dr. Wiles attribution is. I can tell him from experience about thinking I have something when everyone said no, I spent $18 just to find out they were right. I sent in a 2001 D believing it was doubled only to find out that the devises were extra thick that year. John1 told me that and I still sent it in. It's his $18 and I GUARANTEE you right now he's not going to get the answer he wants.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
He's barking up a tree that isn't even there.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
505 Posts |
I completely forgot about that 88 variety 0_0 I wonder how many 88s have gone through my hands unchecked  Regardless 'technically' 92 was the first CAM, even if it was the reverse of 93, still had '1992' on the obverse. |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 27 / Views: 3,208 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 07/11/2019 8:46 pm
