VAM Rarity Question

I think some of the issues with vamming a coin are what are the list-able attributes? For example let's take a 1889-CC VAM 4 and 1889-CC VAM 4A with a clashed E. Roughly 4% of the mintage for 1889-CC was VAM 4. Now I know this is a little hard to wrap your head around but, VAM 4 comes in a clashed and non clashed version. Please remember unless there is a letter transfer, die break (not die crack) or other list able feature, the coin can not receive a new listing.

So here is VAM, non clashed and then clash with a letter E transfer which becomes VAM 4A. As the coin machine keeps churning out coins, due to repeated strikings the clashed E fades away becoming VAM 4 again.

Same thing in circulation happens to VAM 4A with clashed E. As the coin wears and the E can not be seen it reverts back to VAM 4.

VAMs not assigned varieties are coins that have all manner of clash marks and die cracks but nothing significant enough to list.

Continuing with VAM 4, Let's say someone sees a cotton boll clash that wasn't previously listed although on the discovery coin even though it was likely there at the time when Leroy or George Mallis looked at the coin or perhaps a small die gouge that previously wasn't noted.
Without having the discovery coin to compare against, a revision is likely or even a new listing (for the gouge). This is what I mean by VAMflation and it is an on going issue.

Excellent point Oz....I had not considered this, nor did I know he was doing such a thing. His job must be far more detailed and all encompassing than I had imagined. What about these 'plate photos'? I imagine that they are not of high enough resolution to cover cotton boll detail?
Everything vams is probably so tangled up at this point that it may take generations of teams of experts to untangle, and I am not blaming anyone. It is just too big of a task for one man to build upon, subtract from, and keep straight simultaneously. What a mess, but these are the glory days for those who revel in being distinguished with new discoveries and revisions.

Zee, I see where you liked my 'noble and altruistic' remark. All I can say is I know you are looking for a ruby in a mountain of rocks but there ain't no Coupe Deville hiding at the bottom of a Cracker-Jax box.

Right you are Oz, my blood only boiled for about 20 seconds, and then I was fine. I do like rubies, but diamonds are a personal favorite of mine. I'll be you're right about there not being any Coupe De'Ville thing (unless that Cracker Jacks box is pretty old and stale). I don't think they've made De'Villes for several years now. I might wish for a Maserati Gran Turismo S.

I think people mine for rocks sometimes. They make the process too hard. It is difficult enough attributting coins that have what I consider to be minor differences.

I think people have to be cognizant of the fact that VAM knowledge is dynamic and changes as new discoveries are found.

I think the most promising research is to take up research on a series such as 1902-O's and 1904-O's like Alan Scott did. This is where you find duplicate listings. This is also where you see mid die state coins being wrongly attributed because there are not others to compare to.