OK I got this 1878 7/8TF S$1 VAM-31 7/OTF MS 63 Morgan today slabed by NGC which I purchased on line. But for the life of me I can't see anyt double tail feathers. I ran out to Kings Highway and purchased the best magnifying glass I could find and still no doubles to inticate a 7/8 tf. I've researched for a few hours on the net about Morgans VAM and 7/8 reverses. There is not as much information on the net as there can be. There isn't much in the Red Book either. So I borke down and set up my scanner which can magnify much better than my eyes at my advancing age. The Scanner and GNU/Linux did the rest and I can show you these two pics plus the bigger tif graphics I left on my web server at http://www.mrbrklyn.com/coins/ What is a VAM-31 and how can I confirm that I have one. And what makes this coin a 7/8TF (7/OTF) Now that the scanner is up, maybe I'll get a couple of other pics on line. BTW - this coin went for $125.00 The graphics on the website are MUCH more detailed. Ruben
That reverse doesn't show the extra tailfeathers well. "Possible faint tail feathers between 1 & 2" is what it says in the VAM book. Look at the legs on the eagle, you should see legs that are doubled to the right. It should have broken serifs on the n and m in unum. Find those and you have a good start :smile
By the way, I love VAMming!!! I will try to help you in any way I can, just ask. I also recommend getting a microscope, for us older folks, it's a must. I use a toy called a QX3. It takes wonderful pictures and teachs you how to look at your coins. It opened up the wonderful world of VAMs for me. Here is an example of the pics it takes...1887 Gator eye...
Well - it appears to have the diagnostics that Becky mentioned on the serifs and the legs. And not being a VAM person I'm not sure which tail feathers are which as to numbers - but the two on the far right appear to slightly doubled on the very bottom.
i don't see any doubling in the legs on the right. do you see it? Those photos on the external website have the coins blown up more than my magnifiying glass can. What is a VAN? Ruben
YES - I see that. On the M the bottom it is really only visiable in 3d because there are remnents on the flat of the coin making it look complete, but it looks almost chipped, as if it was a seperate piece. On the N you can see it missing on the inside. Why would the front and the back be related? On ony front of the die I would think on any day would be matched to any back of a die. In fact, with the Morgans this pretty much is the fact as the same front designs are used and the backs were altered. Who would decide to eliminate a tail feather from the design? Ruben
It all has to do with the specific die pairs used to strike the coins - they are called die marriages. This particular VAM was only produced by a single pair of dies. The diagnostics on the obverse and on the reverse are used to identify the coins from this 1 single pair of dies. If either the obverse or the reverse die were changed out for a new one - that pair of dies would produce a different VAM number for the coins from that pair.
How many dies did they use in a sigle mint in a single year? I would think at least a thousand? They do wear out with use. Ruben
That would depend on many things, the year, the mint and which denomination. I rather doubt that an answer could be found in many cases. But the number would certainly be in the thousands in many cases.
The images are from a digital microscope that hooks right up to your computer. The QX3 and QX3+ are older models with the QX5 being the latest. I'm shopping for a QX5 right now, but its quite popular and I can't find it for less than $75 + s/h A number of folks here in the forum have them and can give you better reviews of each model. P.S. They're good for the space challenged, but I don't think they would come anywhere close to the magnification of your scanner
I've heard good things about the QX5. Official support is Windows only, but if you use Mac OS X -- and you should -- there is a shareware application available that allows the QX5 and earlier products to be used with your Mac. Linux users I think are out of luck, although it's still a better idea to run Linux than Windows
The QX images being posted far exceed what I can resolve with my scanner, and I scan at 1200dpi. The QX5 is definitely on my Christmas list.
It would need to work under GNU/Linux for me. There is no reason for these things to not just ask like USB hard drives other than paranoia. They store files. They are hard drives. Ruben
