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

Apparently so

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you! I looked in the archives and my post history and couldn't find it.

Summary:

1. 1882-O Morgan dollars exist with an "O" mintmark punched over at least three dies having an "S" mintmark (VAM-3,4,5). So O/S coins exist.

2. At least two long-time professional numismatists (Lange & Fazzari) disagree with other Professional numismatists and Morgan dollar experts concerning the die state attribution (EDS & LDS). Lange and Fazzari believe the historical, status quo attributions are incorrect.

It seems to me that if it can be proven that the EDS and LDS attributions assigned to any one of the O/S VAMS is incorrect, that should add substance to one side of the die state disagreement. The image below is found on VAM WORLD. It shows the EDS and LDS of an 1882-O/S VAM-4 dollar. Without a EDS VAM-4 in hand, IMO these two images are from two different dies. One a VAM-4 and the other a VAM that needs to be given a different #. This is based on the position of the "O" mint mark. Therefore, one cannot be an EDS or LDS of the other. What do you think? I can only think of one argument.




PS I wonder how long it will take for one of the to post some useless .

 

BINGO! We have a [Self Edit] winner.

 

You've cropped out the bottom of the bow knot which makes it difficult to orient the position of the mint mark.

edit to add - the rotation of the two images differ based on the location of the right bow and the imaged portion of the O in DOLLAR so we're not able to compare the locations of the two mint marks.

 

Bump

 

I have samples of all but the EDS VAM 4. I will try to remember to bring my EDS and LDS VAMs 3 and 5 with me to a show you're at (ANA? FUN?). You'll be able to see from other stuff on the die that what I assert is EDS is EDS. The VAM 4 EDS is quite rare and has sharply detailed PL reverse.

 

Note: The distance between the ribbon and "O" (Mintmark placement) is different in the images of EDS & LDS of VAM-4. Easily seen on the left of the EDS coin. The space is wider than the LDS.

Anyone disagree?

 

Different lighting will mess with perception of mint mark position. Also, on a LDS coin, die wear will cause the design elements to spread out a little bit, bringing them closer together.

 

messydesk, posted: "Different lighting will mess with perception of mint mark position. Also, on a LDS coin, die wear will cause the design elements to spread out a little bit, bringing them closer together.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for joining this discussion again and I really do respect you in spite of the way I'm going to pull your chain below. I've been fighting for forty years to get this EDS/LDS nonsense changed and I think I'm getting closer. Once I get a BU EDS VAM-4 under my scope I'll probably have the answer. BTW, I'm going to eat a lot of Crow if I've been wrong all these years.

Actually, your post above is the only possible defense but it falls apart. The die with the larger spread IS THE ONE THAT THE "experts" CLAIM IS THE EDS! I say NUTS! Since die wear spreads out the design the later the die state, and that space is the larger one... What came first, the "experts" or the facts? And again, there is no way on earth that a bunch of jumbled rubble inside the "O" (EDS) can become a sharp, squared -off "S" the longer the die is used (LDS)!

As for lighting, there is a one millimeter difference. That must be some special light at some crazy angle to even get close to causing that much difference. I say NUTS!

 

I'm bumping this thread and waiting for a reply.




AGAIN:

The "so-called" EDS on left shows the distance on the left side of the "O" farther away then the design. Note the weakness at the upper left of the image. One would expect die wear to weaken and spread out the design elements on a finished coin; HOWEVER, as you can see above the "so-called" EDS is the image where this has possibly happened. The LDS on the right is both stronger and in a different position. I should think this image is ENOUGH to prove there has been a long-held error concerning EDS and LDS on this variety.

comments?

PS I am banned from Collector's Universe forums. Perhaps someone could post this question over there and invite comments here on CT.

@CaptHenway

 

Perhaps you'll find your answer looking at the other side of the coin.

 

Now that you've entertained the little no-nothing , perhaps you will be more clear. These are images of VAM-4. What should I be looking for on the obverse? With your skills an overlay may have been a better post.

 

Are you going to be at the ANA show in August?

 

I am not a VAM collector. All I am suggesting is perhaps the diagnostics you are seeking to confirm the reverse die progression of the O/S from EDS to LDS exists on the obverse die. After all, the obverse die struck the same number of coins as the reverse die and therefore should show signs of the same general progression.

 

Howdy all. Other than to say that I believe that these dies were first punched with an S mint mark punch and later punched with an O mint mark punch, I will reserve all other comments until I am feeling better. Got that flu going around.

 

Definitely!

 

No. My company has boycotted the ANA convention for several years after the very shoddy way Randy Campbell was treated at a Chicago Convention. Including our company being left out of the show program and being placed away from the other grading services! If Randy had not been on the FUN Board and one of the ANA governors had not helped out to get chairs for the table, who knows how much worse things would have been!

Messydesk has offered to show me a die progression twice so eventually it will happen.

Note, your statement is incorrect. There is no way to tell the die life of die pairs as they often do not last together for the same amount of strikes. For example, an obverse die could break after 100 strikes while the reverse could strike thousands of coins.

The Dollar experts claim to have a die progression. I have not been able to confirm one.

ANYWAY, you'll note that my question above has not been addressed here at all - yet. I am now leaning to a completely different and unlisted O/S reverse rather than EDS/LDS progression. Proof of this may be in the different placement of the mint marks shown above for the same VAM.

And for the benefit of the several I ignore. I have complete respect for the folks in this discussion who subscribe to the "long-established" die state progression I have questioned FOR DECADES!

I'll also remind the dollar "experts" that THEY are the same folks who believed the Micro-O counterfeits were genuine at the same time THEY formulated this EDS/LDS O/S crap!

 

Having engraved dies and struck thousands of pieces from a die, what Insider says is true. A design does not change in the manner stated for EDS to LDS. It appears more like two different reverse dies were used. One did not become the other through use.

 

The progression of the obverse relative to the reverse remains linear irrespective of the number of obverse dies paired with a single reverse die. For every coin a reverse die strikes a corresponding obverse is struck. A new obverse die pairing simply marks a point in the progression of the useful life of a reverse die.

 

Paddy, just a question, but wouldn't it make sense they'd plug these "undermarks," first, then punch in the overmarks? Reason I ask is, supposing that's what they did. They got the S dies, filled in the Ss, then over-punched the Os. Might that not make these remnants, not of the undermarks, but of incomplete fill? If I'm overthinking it, trust me, no offense taken, ain't the first time I ever did something like that...