First Page
Previous Page
Posted 07/13/2018 4:13 pm
Quote:
They were looking for wear on the high points, possible cleaning hairlines. While the brach is slightly different between the 16 and 17 type 1's it isn't an area you would normally examine closely. I could easily see missing that one extra branch. As for the initial, the initial is incuse on the normal coin so it is raised on the die. If the raised letter chips off (as sometimes happens on Buffalo nickels) the initial would be missing.
They were looking for wear on the high points, possible cleaning hairlines. While the brach is slightly different between the 16 and 17 type 1's it isn't an area you would normally examine closely. I could easily see missing that one extra branch. As for the initial, the initial is incuse on the normal coin so it is raised on the die. If the raised letter chips off (as sometimes happens on Buffalo nickels) the initial would be missing.
In my opinion this is way too dismissive of totally missing the correct attribution. Using such an argument would excuse the TPG from grading matte proofs as regular circulation strikes, and Chapman proofs also being circulation strikes. Do we now need to re-examine potentially rare coins that may be incorrectly slabbed due to lack of competence? To add to the rhetoric, perhaps all 1917 Lincolns need to be scrutinized since they may be proofs.
