Anacs UDM

I wouldn't call it vituperation, I'd call it condescension, not perceived. The irony is always "buy the coin not the holder" goes out the window when they see the holder.
I couldn't care less if it CACs, judging from the beans I've seen on some coins it means less than nothing. I guarantee you I could post my OGH 1890 CC CAC and the same "that's not a 64" posts will appear.

Even Morgandude, with whom I have had disagreements with, was heckled about getting a green bean with his very nice coin. Trust me, it will bean. They must come in Jelly Belly containers.

Once again, you are great, Chris is great, but at some point perception crosses over into reality.

If you can look at my previous post with those two coins side by side and tell me those aren't from the die, then we have a difference of opinion and no amount of persuasion by either side will work. That is why I said it's zero sum. I posted a MS66* with the same eagle buckshot but still it is not enough. In fact, you can see progressions of the die in those photos. If you looked at the VAM 7A attributes, it specifically mentions the rusted dies. This is a transitional state, like you said, they didn't last long. But that didn't stop them from polishing the fields apparently.

So, timeline- I posted a UDM I thought was cool, first post was "surprised it got a 64 with the reverse", me explaining what VAM 7 is, you saying I was wrong and you were astonished it got a 64, me getting bent out of shape, also conflicted because of your vast knowledge, trying my hardest to show with concrete evidence that I was correct, more back and forths, posts of support I appreciate, etc.

At some point you will look at this thread again and realize I was correct about the die. I know you and Chris go back, but I do perceive when someone "considers the source". And it irks me.

But thank you for recognizing the mirrors, that's all I posted this for. And UDM just is a cool thing. Within DMPL there are so many degrees of "DM" it's nice to have a "reference" coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't know you. This is not personal, this is the board. It's a culture. You keep goading me with these statements but I have never said anything about you the way you respond to me. BTW, there is a thing called paraphrase, maybe I shouldn't have put it in quotes, but that's basically what you said. And I explained why the marks were there and then you got back up. But understand, you are both incorrect. So stop yelling and act your age!

 

If you can tell me that all of the photos you posted are coins that you own, then perhaps I can accept your opinion about the pitted dies. However, if you don't own all of them and those are not your photos, then I still have to disagree with you.

Chris

 

Funny you should post. I was looking today for an 1884-CC. I like yours a lot.

 

That doesnt make any sense. All of the super closeups are of my coin. The other photos that arent my coin are all vam 7. The whole point is that there are coins I dont own with the same marks as the coin I do own. The post with two coins side by side are of my coin and a coin in a PCGS holder in a higher grade. Why do I have to own all the coins? Thats a strawman argument. Its irrelevant.

 

I agree that argument made no sense. Who cares who owns the coins? So if they are not yours, your point is non-sense, but if you buy the coin, then you have a valid argument? Confusing.

 

This coin won't cac period. It's in an anacs holder and they don't cac anacs. Still a nice coin with killer mirrors. My grade would be 63. But that's my opinion

 

I believe it was more a reference to needing to see a coin in hand to be able to say with certainty what a picture is showing. Digital pictures have a way of making things look worse than they are ect, without the in hand comparisons to know what you are looking at there is still an element of guessing involved.

 

It sounded like he pretty much made up his mind about the OP's coin though, without seeing it in hand. The ANACS eagle and PCGS eagle looked very similar to me, and the ANACS one was graded a lot lower.

 

Okay, your coin is the first posted in the ANACS slab. Then, there is one in an NGC slab followed by one in a PCGS slab. Why show the VAM-7's when yours is a VAM-7A? They are from two distinctly different dies. Next, there are the close-ups of the eagle's breast showing the finely-raised bumps from the pitting, but these do not show the larger marks that appear to be recessed that are scattered all over the eagle's wings and body. These are the marks I am concerned about because they are sufficiently enough to justify a lower grade.

The VAM-7 photos were just confusing the issue.

Chris

 

That coin is bad azz!

 

Chris, my understanding is that VAM7a is a later stage of the VAM-7:

"A "lettered" VAM represents a later stage of the numbered die that has a die gouge, major die crack, PITTING, die clash, or any other result of a post-die-production occurence that can be shown to have changed the die" (vamworld.com)

Pitting is mentioned for the 7A so it is possible they completely ignored the pitting when grading that coin.

We all know that ANACS is trying to precisely identify and label the VAM varieties, while other TPGs will "possibly" call them VAM-X no matter which die stage or simply not recognize the VAM at all. The NGC/PCGS coins posted could still be 7A's... Does that make sense?

 

where is my popcorn?

 

But they taste pretty good!

 

My coin is not a VAM 7A, it's a VAM 7, just like the other coins I posted. I can show you a VAM 7A if you'd like, but something tells me there will be another strawman argument to follow. A VAM 7A is a VAM 7 with die cracks and a filled die around the talons. Same dies, later stages. There might be VAM 7 coins without the pitting, those would be the early stages. Obviously the die doesn't abrubtly change to a different VAM state, there is a transition, or later stage.

The close ups are my coin, now you are confusing me. They show my coin in even more detail. The marks are the dark spots on the eagle, but as you can see in the closeups, there are raised bumps even within the dark spots. Do you think I switched coins to trick you? I have deja vu. Every coin I posted is a VAM 7. That's why there are no die cracks on any reverse.

So once again, all coins posted were VAM 7, mine is a VAM 7, all coins have similar marks on the eagle breast. Now we're doing a basic logical exercise.

So many experts on this site.

 

Dave, this is the picture from the site.

I think you were tricked by the lighting and didn't clearly see the rust bumps and marks on the eagle on this coin. This is when I started to lose it and realized this would be a pyrrhic victory at best. There are a lot of attributions of VAMS that aren't mentioned in the written description. I disagree that the marks are in different places, just different lighting conditions. Both Chris and you are wrong.

 

I like it and

For what it's worth I was thinking exactly what you were about being a possible transition between 7 & 7a. The gouge behind the eye is there and you can faintly see the rusty eagle plus it's in the description. The lack of a die break threw me for a second which is why I was thinking transitional. I don't know how this got out of hand but I'm with you sean.

Ps, if the coin no longer appeals to you I want it

 

Thanks man, but I'd have to sell it at 63 prices I just wish people would stop looking at a number on the holder and just look at the damn coin. This whole "that's a 63" "that's a 64" thing in every thread is meaningless and arbitrary. These are all photos on a website. It reminds me of another thread where they talk about that Ebay seller wholesaleDMPLS. That guy must have James Cameron working on his photos. But if you had his coins in hand, you'd be disappointed. When I post a trueview GTG I get 65 and 66 guesses, when I post my photos on a GTG I get 63 and 64. This thread wasn't a GTG, but every thread I make turns into a DATG (disagree about the grade).

 

Because grading is subjective. If someone posts that who cares as its their opinion. In fact, I relish those opportunities to either learn from or argue my own point.

That said ct has a way of bring out arguments like no other forum I have ever encountered

 

You are so caught up in your own narrowminded view of how things "

Sean, rust pits are positives on the struck coin, not negatives. And your coin is so EDS that the die cracks haven't even formed yet, much less the rust.