1884 CC does this have a VAM assigned?

It would be considered VAM 1 until something is found on the coin to show that it's enough out of spec for a normal die to be worth mentioning. What is considered worth mentioning has become more and more minute over the years, but there are still coins that are officially considered VAM 1. People studying specific dates have cataloged multiple VAM 1 die pairs for these dates that differ by nothing but small markers like die scratches, polishing lines, and small cracks. They aren't officially listed as anything other than VAM 1, but the person studying them wants to keep them straight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks, John! I've always respected your opinion, but I can't say the same for @Cascade . I think he has it in for me, but that's his problem, not mine.

Chris

 

I have several, well quite a few Morgans that were purchased many years ago prior to being assimilated into VAMming that I call VAM-0 because they have nothing about them that would land them as a listed die pairing other than VAM-1 or VAM-3 if a '21.

 

Fair enough. Every now and then, a previously unknown die pairing is discovered. Some of the "new finds" turn out to be late-stage or early-stage examples of known die pairings. VA and M were diligent and dedicated, but not infallible.

I always wondered about this question involving a known die pairing. Die maker detects a significant flaw (crack, gouge, whatever), repairs the die before it is taken out of service. Are the Post-repair coins assigned a different VAM number?