After seeing all the lovely examples posted here, I just had to add one to my collection!
Specimen designation (one of only three designated as such by PCGS and the only one with CAC approval)
My question for the forum- will CACG call this a proof or a specimen?
It would be illogical logic to re-state the identification as a Proof. To do so, would erode confidence in the new entity.
What would be the position of CACG if the designation was changed to Proof... that the original sticker was for the numerical designation of 67, not an MS or a Specimen or a Proof. I don't think that would hold up well.
Your question would be all the more interesting if expanded to ".... and what about the "+" designation in a new CACG Holder, and what about an "L" designation?".
The devices look sharply struck. Nice coin either way.
i wonder if cacg will have other factors to determine whether proof is the correct attribution of this particular speciman
you are obviously on the right track and catching the attention of @EliteCollection with this one is not surprising to me .. you've got my dreams in your hands
thank you so much!
Did you get a chance to inspect it in hand before making your bid?
Don't hit me...I am on a blood thinner.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?