I've got this Morgan that is driving me crazy with trying to figure out which VAM it is. I can usually figure out most VAM's pretty confidently, even if it takes me a bit longer than more experienced folks. But this one... I see similarities between several VAM's but nothing definitive that I can say for sure "that's the one" and call it done. Some points on the coin seem like they're pristine while others look like they've been through the wringer. It's a bit of a quagmire for me. I've got an Imgur link with pictures and a video of the coin which I will share below. Some of the pictures are zoomed way in because... why not give the coin it's first colonoscopy?? I mean, it's almost 130 years old at this point and who knows what it's been through? I'll post some pictures here if I can make them fit, but here's the Imgur link that leads to my 1897 (P) Morgan that is giving me a rough go with the VAM. https://imgur.com/a/1897-p-morgan-1-v8ACNFf
The fields on this are highly reflective, so much so that the coin was turning orange because it was reflecting my orange shirt in the light in some of the pictures. In case you were wondering why it looked orange in some pictures, that's why lol
Telling us what VAM you think it is would be a great starting point. Pointing out the coin's pick up points would be next.
1-B, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, or 14... LOL! I realize that is just about nothing to go on, but I'm really stumped on this one for some reason. I've already gotten about 50 different VAM's definitely defined but this one is a thorn in my side.
@Dynoking As for the pick ups, there's so many that I'm thoroughly confused. To start at the high-end of it, I'll start with the VAM-14. The date, while not exactly aligned in respect to the denticles, shows lots of similarities. Examples: the doubling on the bottom right and upper left sides of the 1, doubling on the 8 inside, 9 inside of the hoop, and 7 underneath the crossbar. I see some doubling on the arrow shafts but only towards the points (upper arrows show the most) but it seems worn so it's hard to tell. There's also indication of polishing lines at the cap curl, but no die scratches. None of the other markers really pick up on this VAM. VAM 1-B because of the date position. I'm not seeing any of the other markers aside from that. VAM-3 and VAM-4 because of the date doubling but again, not picking up the markers specific to that. VAM-4 has similar polishing lines between the eagle's neck and left wing, but that's about it for that one that I am seeing. VAM-7 picks up again with the date doubling but there is absolutely no indication of die cracks anywhere on this coin. And VAM-10 because of the "slightly doubled 1" but there is no trace of lines on the neck. Sorry for the long-winded reply, but you asked for it!
1897 is a date that has been under-studied with respect to VAMs. The mintage is too large for the number of VAMs cataloged. This means that there are likely many more die pairs that need to be cataloged. This usually happens when someone takes it upon themselves to study a particular date closely, doing a "die study," trying to find every die pair that was made and tracking dies shared among multiple die pairs. This hasn't been done yet for 1897. For your coin, start with the date position. It's in the normal lateral position. If it's not a match for one of those cataloged with a normal date position, it's probably unlisted. The 1 is intriguing with what looks like tripling or quadrupling, but that's unusual for a date punch. Bottom line is that I might list it as a new VAM, but I would have to see it in hand first.
That was something I completely missed! The tiny little box up top (specifically stating it's still in progress) was something I've mostly ignored up until now. I feel a little silly for having done that, but now that you've pointed it out I kind of feel better in that I'm not just missing which VAM it is because of my own errors. It just probably hasn't been identified yet, or listed at that, so I guess my quest to identify this particular coin is getting put on the back burner for a while. Thank you for your help and especially pointing out the most likely scenario. I was starting to think I was going crazy!
