Original Skin?

The so called pull away toning on the obverse makes me want to say it is original skin, totally against what I have been taught for circulated Morgans. Quite the conundrum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Uh Oh, do we have a new vammer among us?? I think Paddy has joined the dark side of the force....welcome aboard , it's better here I am cross eyed looking at 80s vams, seems like a a lot of duplicate listings and not enough photos, it's like opening a pandoras box.....

 

No I'm just a variety collector but do enjoy finding the rarer coins and high R factor coins.

 

Btw, I went back and looked again last night, and I'm even more confused than I was the 1st time I tried to figure this vam out... I swear this vam has a shared obverse AND reverse with other vams .... And I don't think vam 4 because of the MM size, I ended up back at V48 again...

 

Well, 48 shares an obverse with 10 and 93, and a reverse with 60, 61 and 99, so you're not seeing things.

It's definitely a Large S reverse. I just can't see any of the date doubling which is imperative to attributing 1880-S in these images. I see stuff in DOLLAR (and maybe IGWT), but that's about it and that could be MD. We need the date much closer - bet you can do that, Alan - to have a chance at this one. Don't forget, the pullaway toning is going to deceive you regarding doubling.

 

The date has me sold on the vam 4 as if you look at the first 8 and placement of the 0 . Also the point of the Bust and line up of the denticals to the point and placement of the dates numbers. Believe me I went through each vam one at a time then went back again......

 

Again I also believed it to be a large S but look at the date placements . And number styles. This will drive you nuts.btw yes the doubling on dollar the right side leaves and also the wing up to the tip. All doubled again most probably md.

 

When deciding between Large S and Medium S, you only look at the S.

Always in the back of your head must remain the fact that we're nowhere near finding all the die pairs yet. Not that yours is an unknown one, but the possibility is there.

Date placement and number style are not even listed at VAMworld as attribution factors. Date doubling is key. Of the 100ish 1880-S VAMs known, only 5 listings do not involve date doubling and two of those are the "generic" VAM-1 Large S and VAM-2 Medium S. That's 3 out of 100+ where you don't need to study the date for an attribution.

 

Well we will find out as I talked to Alan today and purchase the coin. So as soon as I have it in hand and scope this puppy out we will find out the truth! Make it give up its dirty little secrets

 

You know Heavy I looked very close at this vam. The doubling is there when you enlarge the image. And I must say other then the date I was leaning towards that one.
Now that the date has no merit you my have cracked this one . We'll see soon

 

Make it scream.

 

Well the jury is in and it's a vam 17

 

Just a slight clarification ...

@WingedLiberty this is for you. Perhaps I should have put it in a PM to avoid the excuse of semantics. Professional graders use the word "skin" to describe the natural film that develops on a coin's surface over time. This film can be natural or artificial (altered surface). A Morgan dollar that drops from the press HAS NO SKIN. A St. Gaudens has NO SKIN ether. None on nickels, dimes, quarters, or cents when they are minted.

Natural "skin" develops over time. It even happens in U.S. Mint packaging! "Skin" has NOTHING to do with a coin's mint luster. Natural "skin" can be found on MINT STATE coins, CIRCULATED coins, DIPPED coins, and CLEANED coins. Remember, it develops over time and depends on the environment. "Skin" is very delicate until it sets.

Coin doctors regularly put "skin" on coins to hide hairlines, marks, and high point friction. Gold coins with "skin" are especially desirable. That's why they are altered using various substances. Check out the "bluish" gold coins in TPGS slabs for one type of artificial "skin."

 

I'm on board with V17.

 

Or, original sin........none here......

 

My opinion... lightly circulated, dipped and retoned in an old album.
very attractive.

 

Market acceptable toning....nice coin!

 

Late to the show and I agree- market acceptable; however, I have lightened the unattractive center of toned Morgan's before and you need to leave an arc like in the left field of this one.

See the dark toning still in the hair. What do you guys think.