What's wrong with this Morgan?

I think Books is correct and you sir are wrong as it looks like it's tilted and a VAM 2 not a 1 . IMHO . So in using your own words maybe you should go look up the VAM listings again . Though I must say the ops pics aren't as cut and dry as the VAM pics . I wish I had the means to do an overlay as I still believe it to be a VAM 2 .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I did.. now please do the same.

You know, it is important to present accurate information when discussing such things as an expensive key-date coin. It is more than just a "little" correction. Your original post was not factually correct. It is even more important for someone in your position, but apparently this concerns you less than childishly digging through my past posts looking for something to schmuckishly question.

Now, once you have gone back and followed your own advice, take a little look-see below. The first photo is a close crop overlay of the very coin shown in the OP and VAM2. An ideal overlay with two perfect photos, no, but enough to show proper positioning. The second is simply a crop of the OP photo for comparison and better shows the tilt.

 

With a little digging I'll bet one could find a completed auction for this coin in a details holder from PCGS or NGC. That broken beak on the eagle would be easy to spot. And yes, VAM-2 in my opinion.

 

i guess @dcarr doesn't like to be shown up especially after calling out a member for giving false information like he himself did .

 

Well, the original picture is not of high quality (perhaps intentional on the part of the seller). I did some actual image analysis and comparison. While not 100% conclusive, I will admit that I was probably wrong and the coin in question is likely a VAM-2:

 

I guess apologizing, to the board and not me, for his spreading information not "factually incorrect" is beyond his abilities. Perhaps next time, instead of trying to search out something I've said to question, and do so while ignoring the guy calling it "fake", he'll concern himself more with the quality of his posted information. After all, with how so many look up to him, that's the very least he can do.

 

Ok, I formally apologize to you and the forum for asserting that you were incorrect concerning the VAM-1 vs VAM-2 information.

PS:
In another current tread, you went all the way back to 2007 to search out and quote some things I wrote, so as to question them. Due to the nature of internet forums, all contributors should expect everything posted to be scrutinized. I'm usually pretty accurate, but not 100% of the time, as evidenced by this thread.

 

In previous posts you called me by my first names (although we're not on a first-name basis). So you know my name. Why the switch to a strange 3rd-person reference frame ?

PS:
What is your name, or are you exclusively an anonymous forum poster ?

 

I never ask or suggested, nor would I ever expect an apology from you for anything. However, considering your emphasis on providing only correct information, particularly with such a coin, it only seems right that you would hold yourself to the same standards. Obviously many look up to you, and with that should come the responsibility not to mislead, intentionally or not, especially when childishly worrying and focusing more about the person who said it than what was said.

As for the rest, you act like I invested great time, going through YEARS of your posts to search it out when the fact is ALL I did was to google "hobby protection act 'counterfeit dies'" and right there she was in all her deep, deep irony. It is almost an absolute certainty that it took you longer to search out my post in this thread than it did me to find yours, regardless of the date originally posted. Now, I didn't set out to search your posts, and my only reason for searching for this information was simply to refresh my memory, but perhaps I should thank you for making the quest effortless.

You don't have to like it, and I certainly don't expect you to, but that thread goes straight to the heart of the matter. When we started these little "discussions", at least from my end, the only real issue I took was with your blatant copying of designs and your refusal to call a dog a dog. The little schmuckish jabs, insinuations, and deflective nonsense have, regretably, taken this all in a whole different direction, but just as you like to search out past posts of mine, should yours not be fair game as well? "All contributors should expect everything posted to be scrutinized", remember? You knew this would be walking the line before a single copy was made, yet chose to do so; along with the positive, you also chose to open yourself and your work up to reasonable criticism and, unfortunately, unreasonable as well. I'm not talking about those who pop in once in a while to schmuckishly yell "counterfeit" and disappear without even trying to justify their position, but reasonable critical discourse. Again, this was your choice; you don't, simply because you may wish it, deserve a pass while others deserve scrutiny, especially coming from you. It certainly reads as though you started that thread to question the legality of the other entity's dies, Mr. Carr, not I, sir. If it is okay for you to question the legality of the dies used to produce a product less exacting than your own (and you do) it only goes to reason that yours deserve the same. I didn't make you a public (at least in this hobby) figure, Mr. Carr; as with the products you make, and the choices you've made, they is of your own doing.