Anyone have a copy of the recent Coin World article on the 1882-O/S $?

Perhaps you can past it in this thread. I'm one of the numismatists who thinks the EDS and LDS images assigned to these coins is backwards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

*Looking over my shoulder.

 

Thank You. The controversy he mentions is because no Morgan dollar expert or anyone else has yet explained how a crudely shaped blob inside the "O" (the "so-called" Early Die State) becomes a perfectly formed "S" with sharp sides (the "so-called" Late Die State) as the die is used. Damn, it's a miracle!

 

There really isn't controversy as much as there is misunderstanding. Looking at the rest of the die for all three die pairs shows the same thing happening. With wear, the indistinct under-mint mark becomes more distinct.

You need to look into the process of making a die (or 3) with a corrected mint mark. The wrong mint mark needs to be effaced and then overpunched with another. Effacing the wrong mint mark does not mean simply polishing it off the die. It is recessed in the die and polishing it off would mean removing a lot of surrounding detail and/or leaving a dish on the die (hump on the coin) where the wrong mint mark was. Punching the correct mint mark there would make it a high point of the coin. What has to be done is the wrong mint mark needs to be somewhat filled, then repunched, then polished a bit, leaving little to no trace. Punching the new mint mark will also raise a little metal, pushing it into the old one, filling it a little.

Now put the dies into use. All three will work fine provided erasing the old mint mark was done well. If it wasn't, the repair will fail in the form of a die chip bounded by the weak border between the repair and the original mint mark.

Another thing to consider is that as a die wears, features don't spontaneously become filled in. Die cracks don't close, die chips don't go away.

 

messydesk, posted: "There really isn't controversy as much as there is misunderstanding. Looking at the rest of the die for all three die pairs shows the same thing happening. With wear, the indistinct under-mint mark becomes more distinct.

You need to look into the process of making a die (or 3) with a corrected mint mark. The wrong mint mark needs to be effaced and then overpunched with another. Effacing the wrong mint mark does not mean simply polishing it off the die. It is recessed in the die and polishing it off would mean removing a lot of surrounding detail and/or leaving a dish on the die (hump on the coin) where the wrong mint mark was. Punching the correct mint mark there would make it a high point of the coin. What has to be done is the wrong mint mark needs to be somewhat filled, then repunched, then polished a bit, leaving little to no trace. Punching the new mint mark will also raise a little metal, pushing it into the old one, filling it a little."

Ah, so after leaving little or no trace (EDS), with use, IT SUDDENLY REAPPEARS AS A PERFECT underletter "S."

Now put the dies into use. All three will work fine provided erasing the old mint mark was done well. If it wasn't, the repair will fail in the form of a die chip bounded by the weak border between the repair and the original mint mark.

Another thing to consider is that as a die wears, features don't spontaneously become filled in. Die cracks don't close, die chips don't go away."



Well said. Thanks for posting. I've heard/read it all before. Unfortunately, no one can answer the question of the "miracle" blob.

I've been checking O/S coins for a while. Unfortunately it is rare to get a large group together to look for die breaks and my past images/diagnostics over the years are scattered all over thousands of other images.

Not that it matters to the status quo but the ONLY way some of us will be convinced to join the crowd is when we get to see the actual coins with the actual progression of DIE POLISH, cracks and chips as many of you have done. Then, any disagreement with the status quo could be quickly put to rest. I actually enjoy changing my opinions when I am hit over the head with obvious proof I cannot refute! Perhaps at a future FUN Show you can "school" me with some MS examples.

PS For now, it is easier for me to believe that many of the O/S coins are distinct die pairs rather than die states of the same dies.

 

Can anyone imagine doing a job that comes under such close scrutiny?
A professional athlete...maybe.

 

Try converting those who think different than you to your way of thinking by hitting them over the head with obvious proof they cannot refute.

 

...can be a frustrating exercise

 

It's over 4 months off, but I'll try to remember to bring my VAM 3 EDS and LDS with me to the FUN show. I might have a VAM 5 EDS. I don't have a VAM 4 EDS, because those are extremely rare.

The best analogy I can come up for the "mystery blob" suddenly becoming the diagonal of an S is that you can have a filling in your tooth that's not done well. If you crack the filling on something, the part that comes out will be bordered by the original hole dentist drilled. If the dentist like drilling the letter "S" in your tooth, it would have that shape.

 

Oh my, I tried to clean it up. I'm glad I didn't write smashing me in the face" with proof; or "stomping on my throat" with proof. Go ahead, I can take it.

 

It's a miracle!!

 

Instead of waiting for them to convince you, try convincing them. Or do you not have irrefutable obvious proof of your position?

 

Their minds are already made up. Many of the same guys who swallowed the C/F Micro "O" Morgans after they were published as VAMS long ago decided what 1882-O/S dollars were EDS and LDS and published their opinion. The "misunderstanding" between all (?) the Morgan Dollar experts and at least two professional numismatic researchers has been going on for decades. I only became aware of the different die states when the Top 100 Morgans were published. I thought the die state business was in error then and I still do.

The numismatists who will study this subject are professionals with no ax to grind. I think this will be decided because one opinion will be found to be wacky! Rest assured that if it is mine , I will write about it immediately so that I can correct any false info I have passed on previously.

 

If there are die cracks on the coin, as the article seems to indicate, then it would seem to be a fairly simple task for any competent numismatist to compare an early state (presumably with no crack) to a later die state (with a crack) to a late die state (with a big crack). This is one of the easiest ways to compare die states. Die cracks certainly don't just go away; they usually tend to grow!

 

I'll bring some extra paper to FUN with my coins.

 

The numismatists who collect VAMS are well aware of this and I cannot believe they have not done their "homework." I'm prepared to be proven wrong with the evidence; however, they will never be able to explain that miracle mintmark to my satisfaction.