Posted 03/09/2016 12:23 pm
That's interesting. Are there examples of such mint-made tool marks on memorial reverses? It seems like one of those things that Gasparro simply wouldn't allow.
This is slightly off topic, but it reminds me of a Q&A page between one of the authors and Frank Gasparro in Wexler and Flynn (1996). This was concerning repunched mint marks, but reflects Gasparro's old fashioned assertive confidence in the mint's perfectionism:
Q: If a mistake was made in striking the mintmark in [sic], would it have been removed?
A: I don't think the mint had errors. You struck the mintmark carefully with a punch. You struck it with a hammer, and if it was not distinct enough, you struck it again. There weren't any errors made, doubling or anything.
If there were "no errors, doubling or anything", what are we talking about in these forums all the time?
This is slightly off topic, but it reminds me of a Q&A page between one of the authors and Frank Gasparro in Wexler and Flynn (1996). This was concerning repunched mint marks, but reflects Gasparro's old fashioned assertive confidence in the mint's perfectionism:
Q: If a mistake was made in striking the mintmark in [sic], would it have been removed?
A: I don't think the mint had errors. You struck the mintmark carefully with a punch. You struck it with a hammer, and if it was not distinct enough, you struck it again. There weren't any errors made, doubling or anything.
If there were "no errors, doubling or anything", what are we talking about in these forums all the time?
