Henri Charriere

Truth be told, I could not use it if I wanted to. It is virtually impossible to magnify pixelated images. I am on my wife's cell. The opposable thumb and forefinger is all I need.

The beauty of this is the gentleman of whom you once wrote: "I've already and REPEATEDLY been targeted by ----- ," saw your topic posting, honors me by disengaging "ignore," deposits his comment on your thread, withdraws, and presumably re-engages "ignore." I give him an E for Effort. 😉

Sorry, your claim does not stand up to scrutiny with the 30-power loupe both @MarkFeld and @VKurtB forbade me to use. 🐓

QA questions the authenticy of a comment from anyone who is alleged to have had him on "Ignore." Besides, Quintus now is New and Improved. 😉

I would imagine our colleague, Just Bob, would know for sure. I wonder how they could be authenticated. 🤔 Composition? Mintage? Grade? There's got to be an app somewhere for that.

[There are a number of varieties and errors in the series which, for whatever reason, are not formally recognized. For example, the original segment, 1899-1906, all have raised lettering on the edge reading, "God Protect France." The restrikes, 1907-1914, read "Liberty * Fraternity * Equality. But some of the 1907's (I believe) were minted with the old slogan. It is quite possible I may have one but I would have to de-encapsulate it to find out. Funny how you know something exists, but it is not formally acknowledged. Anywhere. I wish you all the best on your rooster hunt!

[No more "contentiousness". If I engage in It, Alex -- and the "nefarious cabal" kkbll once alluded to -- win. Can't, won't let that happen.] 😉

[I am sorry to disappoint you but despite the best of intentions and my steely resolve, I was unable to attend. So the short answer is, No. The reason is much more complicated. My particular circumstance would not permit it. Any further elaboration would upset members who frown upon lengthy discourses on non-numismatic, off-topic matters. It is my understanding, if it is any consolation, that the lion's share of the overall theme of the convention emphasized ancient coins. I might very well have been a fish out of water.] 🐓 P.S. If there was any mention of the convention in the local papers, however oblique, I am unaware of it. *** P.P.S. Gentlemen, the formal reason given for my dismissal was "contentiousness." A review was conducted and a spokesman speaking on behalf of a consortium of [acronyms] granted me a reprieve which can be countermanded, per Guideline rules, for any reason or no reason at all. I believe a handful of members enjoy unconditional immunity. I do not. 🐓

Really? I see no less than three points of comparison on and about the 3 and use the other numbers for perspective. Clear as day! Am I to believe you or my own lying eyes? If you dwell on it long enough, the 2's ghostly presence will manifest itself. ✨️ 😉

To me the photo alone constitutes overwhelming, clear and convincing evidence minus the fine narrative. What eludes me is the equivocation of others. This is indeed a remarkable discovery!

[My take on all this... absolutely/positively/unquestionably, one of the most fruitful cross-examinations of a cooperative witness (buyer) ever conducted on this, or any other thread, on the Forum. And a special thank you to GF1969 for the timely heads up to me and his gift for gently eliciting details on a sensitive acquisition in a manner others would routinely eschew.]

Wild guess: it is a holder that allows the viewer to examine the edge of a coin held in it. You know, finger-like prongs as opposed to the recessed hole.

Moot.

This doppelganger is not for you, Dailywopper. Come to think of it, neither is it for anyone else for that matter. Its numismatic and educational value is zero and I seriously doubt it would be accepted for grade consideration. Feel free to place it in your toolbox or carry it in your pocket for good luck.

Perfectly understandable. Who would not want to hold such a rare treasure in one's hand just once before encapsulation for who knows how long?

Respectfully, I distinctly recall one of the more notable departures from the standard certification procedure was honoring the buyer's request that the coin be delivered minus encapsulation.

A tidbit for Rooster aficionados... "Until the year 1912 the '9' of the date is 'closed,' in 1913 and 1914 it is open." "The 1914 was re-minted in 202,359 copies in 1921." "The coins from 1907 to 1914 were re-minted between 1951 to 1960 at 37,483,500 copies. They are distinguished from the originals (1899-1906) by a more reddish color." "There were a number of 1898 prototypes made (mintage unknown)" "Matt blanks for both the 1899 and 1900 is what gives this coin its rarity [in addition to regular issues]." 🐓

[I am surprised to see this thread has gone on as long as it has. During my recent banishment to bogeyland, I took the liberty of investigating this matter of a possible scam at CT. Fortunately, this is one of those cases where it does not take one to know one. I don't know what their Master Plan is, or even if there is one, but it would seem to be against their self- interests to engage in wholesale banning. Who would be left? What would be the point? My feeling is nothing should be "permanent," least of all banning, especially in the heat of the moment. There should be the possibility of a review after an appropriate interval. Suppose the person who authorized a ban is no longer associated with the organization? If memory serves, there are at least two prominent members here who were once members there. No man is beyond redemption.]

[I seriously doubt any thoughts would be forthcoming. Now that I know who EC is, I regret making the comment. No one wants to have his purchase critiqued. In his favor, the piece is unique. Condition is just a consideration and not essential. I have never read a thread quite like this one and appreciate your referral.] 🐓

[Great. And I am beginning to look like the old you: quite hirsute! 😉]

[As opposed to ... ?]

[Note: I am well aware this comment is 5 months old.] INMYHO, recognizing this would be a labor-intensive project, barring a generous grant from a private party or access to a sympathetic, influential person who can tap into the time and infinite resources of the Federal Government, this step in the right direction, regrettably, will remain a pipe dream. (Consider that your average person is unable to name the individuals depicted on each of the denominations of paper money now in circulation.)

Actually, there is. Case in point, that 1933. How else to get around that garish leg wound?

Hard to believe this exceptionally lovely piece was produced by a machine. Nice catch!

It really is too bad the uninitiated are clueless as to the use of bold font on pedigree on this thread. Very clever [By the way, thanx for the flowers!]