Knowledge Is King?

Yeah Russ, it is wearing me out.

I too, have considered the possibility that some may never be determined Dave. Especially with the dreaded '21s.

I have often wondered that within a specific hub, if a couple of dies exist that may be so similar in creation, that these two distinct dies are still considered as one. Maybe even in multiple scenarios.

Please do not go into the 1921's I just picked up a Wide reed 21 that I can not match up. It looks like a Vam-28 but has a die gouge in the hair that is not listed as a PUP as well as a nice doubled (1)

in any event the future of vamming won't be in our hands, but in the hands of those who have been around for many years and devoted there time promoting the knowledge. Its much like the presidency, you have to assume it will be for the best, for everyone concerned, but even more so for continued cataloguing of the Morgan and Peace dollars series..and one doesn't have to have deep pockets to find good examples and enjoy the hobby...

The Presidency? Of the United States?

Oh no, don't tell me that.....We 'all' know that type of assuming doesn't work out worth a ----.

GENE.........I am shocked at you !! Tsk, tsk, tsk.



Oh, I can't hold it any longer........

You're talking about VAM-1X. My Holy Grail. My raison d'être.

It should probably be a subvariety, and there's probably only one.

Now, it's very likely that Van Allen and Malis chose not to attempt to categorize by individual die for the specific problems I've mentioned. It's not like they're unaware of how coins are produced; most of what I know about the minting process, I learned from their book. The ongoing VAMming process is drifting that way anyways; I can't say it will actually reach the point where identifying die pairs is the goal, but I do hope so.

It is indeed a multi-faceted paradox as I see it Dave. Is it an ethical dilemma, or a moral one? Sort of causes the term "sharing of knowledge" to seem rather hypocritical, or at least hollow...........well, ' limited ' at best.

I got an email a couple of days ago asking my opinion of what could be done to bring new folks into the hobby. Now I had many times heard this sort of talk before, and wondered why would you care about this? Bringing more folks into any hobby will naturally cut the odds of making that big score. (Why ask me I wondered)....

Ooooo, another facet.... new folks need to be lured into the hobby and be presented with what 'appears' to be a level playing field, (given all of the information available on line).

Now don't get me wrong, I am all for helping someone achieve goals that they have chosen for themselves, but I would like to know just who I am helping most.
"We've got a lot of work to do to get these pages updated, so things will be easier for everyone". Dealer or cherry pickin' collector, they ride the same boat. I had better shut up before this becomes another site that I 'used' to post on. I promised that I would try to be more prudent in my comments anyway.

Keep in mind, guys (generic term, of course), this whole scene is a synthesis of vastly differing personality types held together by only one thing: Morgan dollars. It's only the random laws of chance bringing together anyone of similar personality and agenda. We can't legislate who gets to be involved based on anything except interest. There will always be profit-oriented dealers, nose-to-the-grindstone researchers, the well-informed and the clueless, and those who wish to bask in the glory of involvement without actually, you know, getting their hands dirty. It's gonna happen.

It's my belief that the intent to identify by die pair has, over the years, morphed into identifying by aberration. This may have been a necessary step; I reserve the right to be wrong in thinking that all individual die pairs can be differentiated. Having drifted that way, though, I feel it's drifting back, evidenced by the upswing in identification of superfluous varieties. The die is the die, and regardless of intent the die will win in the fullness of time.

Furthermore, one must consider personality when contemplating how the research has reached public level; there are obviously those whose agenda requires them to withhold information, even if unconsciously and not related to any relative antipathy towards the rest of the field. Many of these folks have work habits formed before technology reached the point where truly microscopic study with easy publication was possible. Still others are satisfied with nailing the gross characteristics of a new variety; knowing they have one is sufficient for them. Not everybody owns altruism as a virtue. Not everybody has the time and motivation to scour the coin for the very last detail.

I feel that those who wish to keep the pool small, ensuring their own larger success, are stepping on their own toes. A pond with no inlet or outlet will inevitably die. It is vital that fresh blood be a constant infusion to the effort; we'll all be gone some day but the coins will remain. Moreover, you can't sell big unless there are buyers.

We live in a world dominated to such a degree by technology, which in the paraphrased words of Arthur C. Clarke is pretty much indistinguishable from the "magic" of our childhoods, that any organized effort to withhold available data will only succeed to the extent that a few determined people refuse to act. I'm not believing that any more than a small minority of those involved in the process are motivated by malicious intent. The majority of the reasons why detail we desire isn't available have to do with the fact that the right people haven't yet gone to the effort of codifying it.

Do not lose sight of the size of the work required. It will take hours of study, with the proper equipment, for every single coin, in order for the knowledgebase to reach the level we're desiring.

Got any time on your hands?