Mohawk

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    2,385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

About Mohawk

  • Boards Title
    Chatzilla

Personal Information

  • Hobbies
    Numismatics and birdwatching
  • Location
    Finger Lakes Region, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

2,376 profile views
  1. It can be regrettable when this sort of thing happens, Matt, I agree with that. But there are also some members you don't want. A guy who reacts this way to comments he doesn't like would fall firmly in that camp, I'd say. Wolfe75 seems to have quite an anger problem.
  2. I do agree with this, Mokie. It is kind of silly to get so worked up over a coin. I wasn't worked up about that......I just don't like violent people and threats of violence....probably weird to hear from a Roman coin guy, but it's true. No matter what Bob did, how Wolfe responded to it was far worse. No one should be threatened with violence because someone doesn't like what they say, especially over something that is relatively trivial, like a coin.
  3. Hi Collector3745, Well.....first off, your photos are definitely improving. As far as your cent goes, I don't think it's a doubled die. From what I can see, I think that you have some die deterioration on the Liberty, which can fake you out when you're looking for things like Doubled Dies. Better luck next time! ~Tom
  4. I'll bet he hasn't Deposito......I love the mental picture of a couple of mischievous kiddos running off with dad's Steelie roll. Thanks for the laugh!
  5. Well, Kramden, that's a lot of cents at once and the photos of each coin are pretty small as a result. From what I can see, they're all Philly Mint Large Dates, so it wouldn't matter if they were copper or zinc as both types are very common for the 1982 Large Date. Other than that, I don't see anything unusual about them from the photos.
  6. Agreed with Bob...heavy PMD. That cent has had a tough life.
  7. Agreed with Jonathan and Greenstang....heavy PMD and wear.
  8. Agreed. Someone was messing around with this one.
  9. Agreed with Greenstang, Manuel. I think we'll know more after an acetone bath on this one.
  10. Well, I'm glad that I got to you before you did that, Manuel!
  11. Okay Wolfe... You sent me some PMs that I haven't read and I don't believe that I need to. I think we can discuss this here and I think that's the last discussion you and I are going to have. First off, I can understand why you were upset by Bob's reaction. I can. But, I was not dumb nor unfair to accuse you of threatening violence because you absolutely did. What else could you possibly have meant by these statements: There is no other way to interpret that. I'm certain that you were not inviting Bob out for a cup of coffee to have a constructive dialog about why what he said upset you with that statement. What Bob said was upsetting to you, and some other members seem to agree that he should have been more delicate or he should have left it alone entirely and they may have a point. What Bob did was bad form, at worst. Not polite maybe, but also not menacing nor threatening. You, sir, by coming back at Bob and others with what you did was absolutely an implication of violence and that goes beyond bad form. It is menacing and threatening. It's also unacceptable, completely unacceptable. It is never alright to threaten another person with violence or to imply a threat of violence toward another person because you do not like what they say. This kind of thing is never okay. If I'm being stupid or dumb for telling you that any implications of physical violence against other people are never acceptable, then I'm stupid or dumb. Bob may have crossed a line with you, but there are ways to handle that without doing what you did. But you crossed a much more important line with your highly confrontational threat of violence. Your misdeed was by far the worse one. As I said before, I reported you to the Mods and I stand by it and there should be punitive action taken against you for this. This was unacceptable Wolfe. And that's all I need to say to you.
  12. I have no idea.....I guess when the TPGs decided that they are.
  13. Hi Kramden, Haven't heard from you in a bit.....it's good to see you back. Well, onto your coins. In looking at your photos, I think the coin in question is damaged. It doesn't look like an off-center error to me. The obverse is also heavily damaged, which indicates to me that what happened to the obverse also impacted the reverse. The other coin looks like it may be missing some details on the obverse. If it is, that's likely from a grease filled die. As always, I hope that this is of some help! ~Tom
  14. Well......good luck on your coin. Also, I reported you to the Mods for the aggressive tone of this post. This kind of thing is not welcome here, regardless of your personal feelings. Sorry about your father, but still, not appropriate nor even acceptable to imply threats of physical violence against anyone, no matter what they said to you.
  15. Hi Duke, Glad to help. The No FG error can be found on many dates of the Kennedy half. There are even more dates that are just missing the F of the FG. I believe the 1971 is one of the No FG dates, but the 1966 and the 1982-P seem to be the best known, at least in the circles I run in outside of the board. I've also found No F errors on the 1977-D and the 1974-D, so it may be worthwhile to check those dates as well. I'd honestly say that these kinds of errors are possible on any date of Kennedy Half, but would likely be most prevalent on coins from the 1960's to the mid 1980's, based on my experience. ~Tom