Ask Your Question Here.

Actually I can not leave it here, I missed all of your post's...
the 1878 series is concidered a near date IMHO, yet your lines drawn such astounding, thought of what it really should be accepted...as... there is no near or far date listed or 1878 so your question of its placement is very valid...as to, this is the first year of minting. so how should others be compared to it for date placement? as it matters to the whole of the theory.. and as pictures often are at an angle so the concieved persception of these lines for date and Mint Mark placement also have been examined.......Mind you its not to shoot the system down, but rather to percieved the coin as it is and the angle of the photo.. which is why Russ thought to collect photo's of coins straight on so locations could be exacted... well I'm just thinking out loud...

Gene, I know that most folks just start at the point of the neck (look at the green lines here)....and go down to the denticles..... that is why (I think) there is such disparity between individuals when determining near, normal and far dates..... If everyone started at a point further up the neck, and drew a line (white lines) through the point of the neck to the denticles, I think that folks could be singing the same tune (in key)...... A longer line (not one starting at the point of the neck) is necessary for consistency (it would be for me anyway).

It's easier to visualize if you imagine the neck as an arrow - the denticle space the arrow points at is the one you count from. Just for the record, this and other basic VAM concepts are discussed in the "What is a VAM" sticky thread at the top of this forum. We've....revised it a bit.

http://www.coincommunity.com/us_mor...is-a-vam.asp

Would a pair of dividers work or a compass work?

Maybe Doucet..... I guess I was just being my normal contrary self..... I could not understand why things have suddenly changed to something that is so illogical....(to me anyway).

Here is the way things used to be:









Extend the dotted line up through the neck and it seems fairly well centered in the neck (like an arrowhead is centered on its shaft):





Here is the new rule with line shown extended through neck on an 1878 coin.... notice that the line is not centered through the neck, but is situated at a location that seems haphazardly placed left of center (a trick arrow).... The placement of point A (NECK) of a straight line as it necessarily passes through point B (POINT OF NECK) will affect its destination at point C (DENTICLES)..... I can't explain it any better.





If the old rule were used, the green line would be logical.... such a simple thing, it only stands to reason that it would have to change into something obscure.




If accuracy and consistency are not considerations, then everything is left up to the eyeball call of each individual, and there is no such reality as near, normal or far dates..... only individual judgment calls based on visual perceptions.

The coin exhibits a near date, just more than 2 denticles away from the truncation of the necks point. I see your point with the green line? They are both actually correct.

Maybe Russ' 1896 was a poor choice of coins..... The point I am trying to make here is two fold....

1).The point of the neck is in different relationships to the denticle spacing on different hubs, so the perception of which denticle is closest to the neck (or which indent the point of the neck is pointing at) will vary..... (nothing consistent about that without a longer reference line).

2).There must be a reference line through the coin (more than just a short line segment from the point of the neck to the denticles), or this near, normal, far thing will remain just as subjective as grading.