Mark on My 1883-O Morgan, what to do ?

Still. No visible E means NO 36a. It's as simple as that. Tell ya what, let's have the master @messydesk chime in and we'll agree to what he says.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If not a 36a, what would you call it? It's not a 22a, for sure, and that's the only other classification of the reverse working die.

 

You are 100% correct. Yep, 100%, and when I remove a piece of dark gunk out of the dentils that is too. So all you "coin doctors" out there better not touch your coins.

 

I greatly appreciate all this input on this Morgan, that's why I'm a newbie.

 

Right now I'm not going to touch this thing or do anything to it.

 

In the big world of numismatics we are ALL newbies.

I'm an old sarcastic newbie.

 

Well I'm a newbie and old !

 

Here are my thoughts on the coin:

NOT a 36a. There's no E and no dash on the xx8x. However, I don't know what it would be otherwise... ELDS on some other die pairing? I guess you could always (if you want to just throw money at it to find out) send the coin to ANACS under their "I don't know what I'm looking for" varieties research program.

 

This VAM starts out life as VAM-36 before a clash event that transfers the E in liberty among other features. It then becomes VAM-36A with the E clash and remains so until the E wears away. At this point it reverts back to VAM-36 LDS. As Cascade posted, no E no VAM36A. There are a ton of listings on ebay that state VAM-36A but many are just V36 LDS.

If anyone is looking for a nice VAM36-A look for a clashed die state with the M in the ear and no bridge crack over the mint mark. This will be as strong an E clash as one can find.

 

Thanks for clarifying that.
To what extent does the clash still qualify as a "partial-E" though? Do both the vertical and horizontal bars need to show? Just the vertical? Just the horizontal?

 

Mine has the "M" in the ear and there is a definite clash over the "O".

 

As I continue to look over the Morgan, and in reading on the Vam 36-A there is the wreath clash at the cap too. A Morgan can one one clash without the other right ?

 

Just show at all. It becomes so faint that it becomes a judgment call.

 

Oh to have the eyes of an 18 year old again.

 

That's just it. You may be able to see the remnants of the E under magnification and rotating the coin just right. Now the challenge is to photograph it.

 

yep I put it down then pick it up to see if it is there I gotta walk away.

 

This looks like something I've called VAM 36A LDS. VAM 36 is also appropriate and actually might be preferred, since there isn't a pre-clash VAM 36 that would cause ambiguity. The E clash is only present on the early stages of this die marriage, as the reverse came from VAM 22A.

As for the planchet impurity, leave it alone. If a grader sees this, it's sort of a signal to look for signs of attempting to remove it in a non-market-acceptable manner. It affects eye appeal, so if this coin were a shot-65 without it, it would not be graded 65 with it. At the 62 vs. 63 level, however, this shouldn't affect the grade given the size and location.

This die marriage is one of the more common E-reverse VAMs, and can be found without a huge amount of effort with and without the E.

 

Then to put it to rest, for now, I don't see the E .

 

In widely accepted numismatic parlance, "skin" refers to toning or patina, which are natural reactions of the coin with its environment. The compounds formed are oxides or sulfides of the coin metal.

Acetone WILL NOT remove these. Acetone WILL NOT affect toning, if it is natural. Acetone will only remove organic compounds. Acetone WILL NOT affect metal comounds.

There is absolutely no need to treat the coin with kid gloves. Put the entire coin in a glass of acetone, and leave it there. Remove all of the organic compounds from the surface to help in conserving the coin. If the toning, or any other colors were removed then they were not natural toning and shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I'm not sure where you got this from. Do you have a reference explaining this? I, and many others I know, have used "skin" to refer to any natural patina on any coin.

I don't understand why this would be the case. Natural toning on gold is a compound of silver and copper sulfides - and should be unaffected by acetone. If the color changed by application of acetone, then the compounds on the surface were organic in nature, and shouldn't have been there in the first place. Do you have pictures, or some sort of explanation for this claim?

Water will not chemically affect the surface of the coin (unless there are solvents present). If water affects the coin, the substance shouldn't have been there in the first place. There is a big difference between natural oxidation, and reaction between sulfur compounds in the environment, and surface contamination from foreign materials.

There is a huge difference between conservation and doctoring. The semantics are beyond the discussion of this post (although other posts have dissected the issue). True conservation seeks to stabilize the coin and remove damaging substances. If a surface is impaired after conservation, it was because the contaminants had damaged the coin already. Doctoring, however, seeks to alter the surface of the coin to improve the apparent appearance of the coin.

Using acetone on the spot will not produce this effect, if done properly.

Dipping is doctoring. Dipping removes metallic compounds from the surface of the coin. Sometimes, a silver solute is required to remove the compounds (and, a properly performed dip is still considered market accepable). However, dipping is doctoring. Acetone does not change the metallic structure of the surface of the coin, and thus is not considered doctoring - it can only remove organic compounds.

Doctoring IS NOT conservation. The two are significantly and fundamentally different processes. There have been many threads on the subject, and a full discussion is beyond the scope of this thread.

Without closer examination, I'm not sure what caused the mark. If it is a planchet flaw, then acetone won't remove it (of course). However, treating the entire coin in acetone will cause no adverse effects to the coin (if properly done), and will raise absolutely zero alarms.

 

So, "in a nut-shell", as they say, acetone will not damage the Morgan. But how long is "how long" to leave it in the acetone ? Again, by doing this, and then sending it in to be graded, the company I send it to will not call this "improperly cleaned" ?