Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="SuperDave, post: 2756934, member: 1892"]No, we aren't to "assume" that in the scientific sense of "assume," implying a degree of certainty. But, what we_do_know is that the process of deliberately cataloging Morgan die pairs has been ongoing for over fifty years by one single living person (now with a bunch of help) and although new die pairings are still regularly identified, their rate of appearance is going down. As a result of the Pittman Act meltings, we know we'll never find them all. All the same, there are currently almost 5,000 VAMs listed and we've got a pretty good handle on how the whole thing works. Actually, 1884-S is a prime candidate for additions, since so few exist in researchable quality. But when an 1884-S "die pairing" exhibits unique characteristics of a die specifically known to be from a different Mint in the same striking year, we can be reasonably sure it's a fake. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> The "1884-S" in the CW article duplicates the 1884-CC VAM-7 obverse, right down to date location and MDS-LDS die crack pattern. This is not a coincidence. They chose that "donor" coin to have the appropriate date.[/QUOTE]