• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Another addition...

7 posts in this topic

Nice Andy. Hard to find those without flat devices on the reverse, especially in the near-gem grades.

 

Hoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Hoot,

 

I think I got lucky finding one with a good reverse strike. I tried to talk David Lange into allowing Isabellas in the Quarter type set, but he wouldn't budge. sorry.gif It's part of MY type set anyway..... wink.gif

 

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough coin to find with lots of eye appeal, Andy, but you already know that. I had your back covered on that thread about letting the Isabella into the quarter type set and I raised a point that I don't believe NGC ever countered or answered and that would argue for their inclusion.

 

Anyway, did you see my question of NGC to allow a Hawaiian quarter (1883) in as my State Quarter in my type set? They said no way. frown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Tom, I saw your post about the Hawaiian, and thanks for backing me up on the Isabella inclusion in the quarter type set. Unfortunately, DL wasn't having any of it! 893frustrated.gif I still think there is a case to be made for its inclusion as it is unique, for a 25 cent piece, in US numismatics, even though it is a commem.

 

Andy laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy and Tom,

I bet those guys just love people like you. crazy.gif I hope they see the

irony and at least some of the logic in your requests. I do! acclaim.gif

The stiff NOs are only because thier registry would be (in thier opinion) screwed up.

Keep pullin' thier chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites