Home U.S. Coin Forum

If you think Hall and PCGS are wrong, check this thread . . .

DMWJRDMWJR Posts: 6,011 ✭✭✭✭✭
Now this a productive thread, by the man himself.

Roosie Collector's What do you think? by David Hall
Doug

Comments

  • wondercoinwondercoin Posts: 16,982 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I am glad DH opened up the discussion and I am hopeful he considers limiting the designation to the bottom bands (just like Franklins are designated using only the bottom bell lines). I went into a little more detail in the thread and I noticed the #1 ALL-TIME PCGS Roosie set collector (Reistrycoin) and the #1 ALL-TIME NGC Roosie set collector (onlyRoosies) also supports use of the bottom bands only to determine the designation. image Wondercoin

    Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
  • DMWJRDMWJR Posts: 6,011 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mitch for what it's worth, I have the #2 46-64 and the #2 65-present mint state sets, I am fully behind "Bands" and not "Torch." I'm going to e-mail Danny and see if he will chime in.
    Doug
  • merz2merz2 Posts: 2,474
    Mitch
    I agree with you about the bands.
    Don
    Registry 1909-1958 Proof Lincolns

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file