The 1882 O/S Morgan Top 100 Vam or Refuted Over Mint Mark

No Eddie I totally understand your question as well concerns...one reason for this post was to hear others take on how this occurred. Now I am more so an half dime ,and Indian head cent collector.
From my understanding as well research on h-10's the mint really kept bad records...of dies used , the number of proofs minted....so my take is if that was the case on half dimes most probably it was the same for Morgans. The New Orleans mint was famous for rusted dies....as where is it located in a very hot and humid area that would allow all medals to rust ...including dies.
Now I will be the first to admit that Morgans are not my strongest interest,or am I that good at doing their attribution. Knowing we do have some members who are very good vamers I rely on their expertise. I have read that there have been times that all 3 mints at that time did share,and ship dies to
Be able to strike coins at that mint. But again the records were not kept up to go back and research.
There's been times where the mint struck a number of coins on lets say on a Monday....and melted them all down on a Tuesday... im speaking of the 1853 no arrow half dime.
But again inquiring minds ask questions ,and research those questions to formulate the correct answer.
I agree it would of been a better choice to do as you described...But again who was running the mint?
Why are there misplaced dates? As well other things found on our money that shouldn't be there...?
I only wish that there are records to answer some questions that may never be answered correctly.
Only by speculation.

One other point...it seems it was 5 o'clock at the mint all day long...as the consumption of alcoholic was an accepted pratice at this time.... plus I do not imagine that the press operator were well educated. Yes they knew how to run the press...but in all actuality could they read and write?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is when the dates weren't on the hubs. Just like on the mint marks, they were punched into the dies. I had always thought they fill the "underdates," first, try to "plug" them up, then punch in the overdates. As they're recessed on the dies, that would appear to make sense. Certainly they wouldn't file or polish anything down, these devices, raised on the hubs, are sitting down, or "incuse," on the dies.

But that's I guess where I check out. I would really like to have it validated, though, precisely how overdates and overmarks happen. Your question is a big success, thus far, and we've the experience to answer that, right here. So answer it, you guys. Or I'm going to come looking for you. And I'm bringing Paddy with me.

 

Eddie I have a half dime it's a 1847 or 48 the date I cannot recall at present. Now you know how small these are...however to the right of the date there's a mark not exactly like the digit 7 but close to what a 7 looks like,and it was raised off the surface not in as a scratch would be. I sent the specimen across country east to west coast to an expert to have him look at it ..as well ID the mark...other than a strache he has no idea as to what it is or how it got there. He's logged it ...in case another should surface.
I have around here somewhere two 1918 p and s buffalo NIckels...under the 18 on Both
Coins there are other digits... not as prevalent as the other well known over dates the series has...but here's what I was told when trying to find out if my thoughts were correct.
"Show me another one" and then I'll attribute their presents.
Now we all know again that there are buffalo nickels with other dates under the primary.
But its things as such that makes me question, research,and find out for a fact why they are there...just like this O/S is....

 

All well and good; however, this falls apart if we are talking about tow completely different O/S reverse dies. Just because there is a progression of the obverse showing it was a LDS does not Indicate anything about the die state of the reverse dies.

So if Messydesk has a LDS obverse paired with the "so-called" LDS of the reverse having a fully strong over mintmark, I am now suggesting that an entirely "new (Not the "so-called" EDS ) reverse was paired with it. That is the only way to explain the different mint mark positions - at this time BELIEVED TO BE different die states of the same die!

You CANNOT make a strongly visible, sharp "S" found on the so-called" LDS coins from thin air (the "so-called" EDS)!!!!!

 

Even if this is the case looking to the obverse could still provide you with some diagnostics. One aspect numismatics tends to ignore, which I am of the opinion will become more important in the near future; is die alignment. One quick diagnostic that can be easily obtained is die rotation. Have you checked the die rotation of the two proposed die pairs to verify any variation?

 

justafarmer, posted: "Even if this is the case looking to the obverse could still provide you with some diagnostics. One aspect numismatics tends to ignore, which I am of the opinion will become more important in the near future; is die alignment. One quick diagnostic that can be easily obtained is die rotation. Have you checked the die rotation of the two proposed die pairs to verify any variation?"

I call your excellent suggestion, "thinking-out-of-the-box." You have just joggled my brain. Big thanks! One of the (I believe) never discussed "tricks" used to authenticate some coins in very worn condition (unfortunately, I don't wish to share this info) is die alignment. It NEVER occurred to me to check this on O/S Morgan's.

 

And a characteristic that is very difficult to emulate and mostly overlooked by nefarious numismatist.

 

Until now, after you "spilled-the-beans."

 

You geniuses got mud in your ears or what? How did this happen? Did they fill the S first? You don't even know how it happened and you're flying off discussing it.

 

My thought is filling a mint mark on a die wouldn't hold up very long to the rigors of striking coinage.

 

That's what I'm saying. That's why I'm asking. And nobody's got but guesses? Oh that's real inspiring.

If the fill didn't hold, one could expect the overmark to come out a little funky, no? But you guys, who don't even know this happened, let alone, indeed, if it even did happen, are locked on it's a part of an undermark, the underlying S mark. No wonder nobody has confidence in anything you're saying, here. And you can throw VAM in that, too, as they don't even bother to explain this. Then PCGS puts a pricetag on it, and we're off buying it, figure that. Like taking candy from a baby...

 

You know we may never know or understand what caused this mint make to be filled . Is it actually anO over an S ...was it something a mint worked did on porpose. Unfortunately there are so many unanswered questions in life in general. No need and make this a focal point of an argument.
I do believe that theres quite a few things in numastics that have and will go unanswered.
Probably a great subject for a book.... as long as there is an answer not just a theory.
But until theres rock solid information [ie] records found and proven...all we can do is speculate....which only brings up more theorys...as well fodder for more arguments.
If only the mint had kept records as the Spanish and Germans did...we could find a rock hard answer that all would be satisfied.

Mods please correct the duplicate post... my apologies as I only hit post 1 time...and how many poped up?

 

You know we may never know or understand what caused this mint make to be filled . Is it actually anO over an S ...was it something a mint worked did on porpose. Unfortunately there are so many unanswered questions in life in general. No need and make this a focal point of an argument.
I do believe that theres quite a few things in numastics that have and will go unanswered.
Probably a great subject for a book.... as long as there is an answer not just a theory.
But until theres rock solid information [ie] records found and proven...all we can do is speculate....which only brings up more theorys...as well fodder for more arguments.
If only the mint had kept records as the Spanish and Germans did...we could find a rock hard answer that all would be satisfied.

 

Well if they did what you guessed, just punched over it, it could be part of the underlying S.

 

Roger W. Burdette, who has studied the minting process extensively, says that in the late 19th Century the Mint would alter a die by first filling in the number or letter with bits of untempered steel, tamping it down, smoothing it off, and then punching in the new number or letter, smoothing off around it, and hardening the entire die. I yield to his expertise.

The 1901/0-S $5 overdate has always looked to me as though a part of a filling had chipped out of a die. Something similar may have happened on the 1882-O/S dies.

TD

 

RWB, yes, now there’s an expert! Thanks for this. I learned a lot from Roger when I was on NGC. That’s not to say anybody here will take pause from any of this. But I’m hearing it, you bet. Thanks, again.

 

Technocally, unless the die was obstructed at times with die fill, debris or other significant mpairments.

The photos Insider gave show the underlying S at a different position.

 

But a new obv pairing would also create a new variety/ die marriage. If you have a VAM-4 and you change the obv die, you no longer have a VAM-4

I've seen his comments on that and I don't buy it. You would still have to heat the die enough to melt the steel bits and at least partially melt the die in that area so the fill could mix and bond with the steel of the die. I would think that would cause distortions in the face of the die. And the die would still not be homogenous so the hardening and tempering of that area would still be different from the rest of the die. I would expect a rapid failing of the die in that area.

 

Conder101, posted: "But a new obv pairing would also create a new variety/ die marriage. If you have a VAM-4 and you change the obv die, you no longer have a VAM-4."

LOL, EXACTLY!! If the Mint Mark is not in the exact same location for the long held VAM-4 die states oops: an error in MHO) THERE IS ANOTHER DIE PAIR and the LDS/EDS crap for these coins goes Bye-Bye . There is NO WAY on earth that a die with a weak jumble of marks that looks like an "S" BECOMES a very strong, sharp, "S" inside the "O" after the die becomes MORE USED! It is made up nonsense.

Look, please allow me to give myself a pat on the back. We all build on knowledge provided to us by those numismatists who came before. They were not perfect. We are not perfect either; however, with the passage of time, better tools for examination, and more interest, the status quo is occasionally changed. That allows all the "New Guys" to slam much of Walter Breen's contributions for example. In 1972, when I started at the ANA's Certification Service, the first time an "1869/8" Indian cent was submitted, I showed Chuck that it was actually a 9/9. There was no such thing as a 9/8 but that's what it was considered from before I was born! Chuck let me write this "discovery" in our Numismatist magazine column. ANYONE with a microscope or hand lens could have seen what I saw decades previously. They just went along.

That's what I believe is going on with the O/S coins. Experts determined the LDS/EDS long ago and it has stuck. It was obvious to me long ago that
som-ting-wong I have not been able to prove the obvious - you cannot make a pile of bricks LOOK LIKE A HOUSE! Finally, the different position of the "O" (if confirmed) will get folks to take another look at the die state nonsense for the other O/S Vams.

Condor continued: "I've seen his [ROGER] comments on that and I don't buy it. [Me either. If the "S" were filled on the die and obliterated before the "O" was punched, there could never be a strong slash ("S") inside the "O."]You would still have to heat the die enough to melt the steel bits and at least partially melt the die in that area so the fill could mix and bond with the steel of the die. I would think that would cause distortions in the face of the die. And the die would still not be homogenous so the hardening and tempering of that area would still be different from the rest of the die. I would expect a rapid failing of the die in that area."

Great point. The die did fail. A clear strong "S" inside the "O" broke down.

 

Doesn't that hinge on who the attributor is? Some simply recognize a new die marriage as a new stage in the progression of a variety. CONECA and Wexler come to mind.

I am with you on the die plugging/repair issue.

 

justafarmer, post: 8434996, member: 3926"]Doesn't that hinge on who the attributor is? Some simply recognize a new die marriage as a new stage in the progression of a variety. CONECA and Wexler come to mind."

Yes, probably but one of the attributions will be incorrect. There is a difference between TWO different reverse dies and ONE reverse die tracked at its different die states.