83 O Guidance

How come when I was at Site-X, I was the only one who seemed to understand this? Did everyone else know, but just refused to admit it, or was I really correct in my thoughts of the caliber of folks that surrounded me?

So nice to hear from you Terry. I have missed your commentary over the past couple of days. I always learn something new when you post (I really do).

So what was the focus before, it not die pairings? I must have been totally oblivious to something there.

I understand......Thanks for the explanation......So the current efforts (to put things in visual perspective), by folks like SuperDave, Twohawks, and that Alan guy (among others) cannot be overstated.

It is in no way possible to lay any true blame for the current state of VAMming. The task was started in times when such a huge undertaking was handicapped by technology which was not up to the task of accurately codifying the enormous store of information. The task remains huge today, far more than one person (or one committee) could ever hope to accomplish even with the great technological advances we employ every day. Much of the additional layering added since the initial efforts has been derivative, and therefore somewhat flawed if only for having followed the original methodology i.e., concentrating on easily-discernible features rather than the proof that this is one die, and one die alone.

I consider Alan's work to be head and shoulders above that of anyone else in its' importance, as much because of the example it sets as anything else. He is personifying the nature of how it should be done; his work is setting prototypical standards for the way it needs to be in the future. One man, one year, one mint. That is manageable, and very little more. That doesn't mean his methods or approach should set the absolute standard - refinements need to be considered and freely made as the easier methods become obvious. Case in point - I've mentioned die lines in protected areas many times as a potential common ground for die pair differentiation.

It may turn out that this is inaccurate, as we find dies with duplicate lines which display obvious differences in date/mintmark location. It may also turn out that it will become technologically feasible to measure date locations, or denticles, with such minute accuracy as to render them "smoking gun" indicators of individual dies.

So the methodology might change.

Another possibility is a near-real-time collaborative wiki of specialists focused on one issue, all with sufficient technology to measure with the accuracy required, and all able to share verbal and imaging results via the instantaneous efficacy of the Internet. This would lend itself to such dates as 1889-P, of huge mintage.

In any event, a degree of privacy would be required if only to eschew the obfuscation of well-meaning but underinformed researchers diluting the effort with their erroneous input. I will not claim the wisdom to define how such a thing should be pursued, but I will claim the belief that research must be pure to be effective.

Are you there Gene?

Yet the strike thru vams and the micro O vams remain. What is the sense in this? Yeah, I understand the history of the counterfeits and all of that jazz, but will the time never come to put these things into proper perspective as well, or are they needed as reminders of something?

I do understand that they are highly collectible today, but I wonder if they were identified as counterfeits 30 years ago, would they still hold the same value that they enjoy today?

So, my assumption is that their perceived value is strictly nostalgic, and limited to a few folks who pass this perception of specialty on to others who are impressionable.