Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Brett_in_Sacto, post: 2226743, member: 71510&quot;]So I have what I think may be a ringer, but I&#039;d like other opinions.&nbsp; There&#039;s something under the mint mark and I&#039;m going to get out the hi-res camera this weekend and review.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve shamelessly stolen verbiage from PCGS regarding the supposed variety.&nbsp; Pictures below it.&nbsp; The last picture is the best I can do with the camera I&#039;ve got now.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://www.pcgs.com/books/silver-dollars/Chapter15Listings-049.aspx" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.pcgs.com/books/silver-dollars/Chapter15Listings-049.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcgs.com/books/silver-dollars/Chapter15Listings-049.aspx</a></p><p><br /></p><p><b>2. &quot;1881-O/S&quot;</b> (status controversial): A variety described as 1881-O/S, Breen-5560, has been cited by Walter Breen (B-5560), but has not been confirmed by others. Leroy C. Van Allen and Bill Fivaz each report that they have never seen such a variety; Van Allen suggests that VAM-5 or 9 might be mistaken for an overmintmark. Thomas K. DeLorey believes it is just a repunched O. Jeff Oxman believes that it may indeed by an overmintmark, &quot;but the jury is still out; it has similarities with 1882-O/S varieties.(Bill Fivaz and Leroy C. Van Allen letters to the author, each dated October 31, 1992. Thomas K. DeLorey note received November 1992. Jeff Oxman, letter to the author, November 29, 1992.)</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]437167[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]437168[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]437169[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]437170[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in