Anacs UDM

Dave, there are positive rust pits on all coins I posted. There are also other marks, whether from the actual rust on the die, which would be negative, or grease or crud or something I don't know about. I am not the narrowminded one. My close ups clearly show the positive rust pits. All you have to do is look at the pictures. You are on the wrong side on this one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Let's see what everyone else thinks. Personally, I'm done trying to get through to you.

 

For me, I'm done, too!

I wish John @messydesk would chime in. I'd sure like him to take a look at the reverse photo from the original post. If John says I'm wrong, I'll accept that because he knows more about them than anyone here, but I'm not taking the word of Sean5150 for anything.

Chris

 

Thanks, you proved my whole thesis with this post!

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. Which brings me back full circle to why it is a zero sum game for me to post.

 

You gave an honest opinion Chris. Don't ever change. When I post a coin, that's what I want, good or bad. I get ticked when someone picks me apart for posting my opinion. When we all agree on every coin, I'm going to leave this site.

 

You're so full of it your eyes are brown!

Chris

 

Larry, he's a loser and a cry-baby.

Chris

 

FWIW, I'll chime in. From looking at the obverse, I see a lock 64DMPL. Looking at the reverse, I see the marks on the eagle and say to myself, "Hmmm... Those are distracting, but the fields are very clean and it's a CC, and calling it 63 given the obverse would be pretty harsh, so 64DMPL still seems appropriate, but I'd want a return policy or in-hand inspection before buying it." My opinion may change with the coin in hand, of course.

The die pitting on the eagle is visible in the first photo as a darkened patch about the size of a dime. Pitting does not have to occur over the course of a die's being used. Many Morgans from 1881-1885 show pitting in the earliest stages, even with DMPL surfaces. It makes for a great die marker when trying to discriminate between different dies and determine minting sequences. (Aside: I recently, by blind luck, had a sequence of 5 different 1881-O VAMs in front of me I was attributing from the same submitter, all different obverses with the same reverse, verified through the pitting patterns. I was able to determine the order of the die pairs from the sharpness of the pitting and other die wear. The submitter didn't realize this, and I decided it was pretty cool.) Also, DMPL surfaces don't necessarily have to be the initial die stage, although they almost always are. A die can be repolished.

 

Thanks for the info. So the marks on the eagle are from the die?

 

Thanks, John! I really didn't want to drag you into the middle of this, but you are the most qualified person I know.

Chris

 

Raised ones, yes. The ones that look like hits, no, and that's what I'd want to see in hand.

 

Please take a look at post #34. Those are two different coins. The marks are almost identical, do you think that maybe they could be from the die? I know the lighting is different, but the marks look almost identical. And if you continue down to post #37 I included close up shots of the surface. I just find it hard to believe two different coins with very clean fields can end up having almost identical "hits" on the eagle.

 

Ah, the elusive "bird shot" variety...

 

Well, this is interesting. If marks are on the die, the marks must appear on all three coins. (Leftmost is OP coin.) It sure looks like there are some marks (but not all) on the coin that are common across all three, especially on the eagle's legs and at least one near the middle of the breast. This seems rather odd, since they'd have to be raised, smooth burrs on the die, which doesn't make sense. The comparison above also shows how on the leftmost coin the pitting on the die "darkens" the luster, much like the 60-grit cameo proofs of today have different luster than the pre-2006 cameos. This pitted luster makes marks on the coin show up much more, and probably makes them look more severe, than normal luster would. I'll have to look for a couple of these and study them in person.

 

The Eagles breast is one of the high points on the coin and most likely to take a hit. Just like the cheek on the obverse

 

It does appear that there are some marks identical on all 3. Not all. But I see at least 3 that seem to compare as likely die marks

 

That's what I was thinking I just didn't know how to express it as well as you messy. Glad to know I'm not going crazy

 

Since the topic still has legs and John has weighed in, I'm looking closer (200% magnification in the Gimp) and have so far found one likely candidate for commonality on the tenth feather up on the eagle's right wing (the triangular looking one at the border between feathers). It's slow going since a grid doesn't line up all 3 coins evenly and I really don't have the time to do such precision with all 3 originals.

The mark referenced doesn't appear on the plate coins for either V7 or V7a, neither of which seem to have many marks at all. Sufficient die markers exist to clearly indicate they're the same reverse, so no mistake has been made in the listing. How do we reconcile that? I will say I think I've found that same mark on a couple (so far) at Heritage.

For those playing at home, the two right-hand coins in John's post above are a preferable starting point since they're both lit from the bottom while the leftmost is lit from the top and may be a bit deceptive as a result.

I'm hardly convinced.

 

I apologize for us curmudgeons who may not be familiar with the finish seen on those coins you've presented. As a significant collector of DMPL coins, I also was intrigued by the grade assigned to that condition coin which I hadn't yet experienced.

I've appreciated your enlightenment for us who may have not experienced that condition coin, especially without the VAM condition being explained.

I trust you'll accept my apology, and share your knowledge in the future, as we curmudgeons may also candidly express ours, hoping to not offend.

I'll plead guilty to unintentionally offending others with my understanding of the truth, and respect those who respond with an objective educational response, as yours.

Rich