2 part thread. 1: GTG 1880 S Morgan 2: Would acetone remove the gunk if cracked?

Here are some things to consider:

IMO, this is a case of buying the slab label in spite of the coin. I've already posted that this is a neat coin. It is attractive and gives its owner a chance to show off some mint-made DEFECTS.

That's the problem. In a head-to-head competition between two MS-65 coins one with the defects and one w/o, this coin would loose as 95+ percent would choose the other coin. When the time comes to sell, everyone will notice the defects. Finally, why a "star?" Now, let the discussion begin...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I could not agree more unless we were talking about a desirable die defect (VAM)

 

I don't care about the slab. I was actually looking for a dmpl to add to my collection but this coin stood out to me. I thought the brown was a human error such as a spill vs a planchet defect.

Now that I was taught a lesson as to why it's not a human mistake it solidified my interest in the coin. The plastic just holds it in place.

Yes, why a star?

 

Surprise! No one can argue with that answer. I agree, you bought the coin for what it is so you'll always like it! That is a plus.

However, I'll bet you could have waited and found the DMPL coin you really wanted with some planchet flaws or struck thru's and had the best of both worlds.

 

The star is because it has *way* above average eye appeal for a 65... That ain't no normal 65

 

Yes, but this coin could have been gone. Just like my coins, I'm full of flaws. My coins are a reflections of me. Or should it be

 

This would be a great coin to send off to JT Lee to photograph.

 

Frosty.

In-hand, you may see a coin whose surfaces are 90% DMPL. That's not enough for the designation - every visible field surface on both faces has to reflect enough to achieve the designation. If they missed the polishing on one square centimeter of one side, it's not DMPL. If the obverse is DMPL and the reverse not, it doesn't get the designation.

But it will get a Star.

 

Let's discuss VAMs now...

There's a small dash under the second 8. I don't see any doubling inside the 8's and the planchet error is making it difficult to see any doubling inside the 0. What else can I look for to narrow it down?

 

Interesting. All of the "Dash 8" listings at VAMworld call for a Medium S, and yours sure looks like a Large S. The "high" and left-tilted nature of the MM ought to be a pretty specific identifier for the known varieties, except it doesn't appear to be any of the known varieties.

That said, this is also an example of the somewhat disorganized and incomplete nature of VAM listings; especially with dates and varieties of "lesser" importance such as 1880-S there are numerous duplications and incomplete/maybe improper details listed. Perhaps @messydesk has something in the memory bank to clarify, as he's a reservoir regarding VAMs compared to my small drinking glass.

 

The reverse looks like a nice, flashy 80-S, but not enough for PL. The brown inclusions are there to stay. Any efforts to remove them will leave a nasty scar at best. The obverse looks strong enough for some sort of PL designation, hence the star. As for VAM, try VAM 46.