Science Or Opinion

ZeeWool, I agree! But that then begs the question of, is science really finite or is it constantly evolving because of human nature? As Homo-sapiens we are endowed by God with a thinking brain and intelligence to apply new information to changing circumstances! Therefore, is all we can do in real life is reverse engineering, and everything else (the future) by speculation. Many can say that they can prove science to be static, however when one change of circumstance is interjected into the scientific equation (i.e. a new dye chipped) then the outcome differs! Because of this ever-changing world of physical properties one thing can be for sure that what is true today may not be so tomorrow! Thus, even numbers are open to human interpretation.

I would say in a field where there is more opinion than anything VAMing isn't one of those. I think it is definitely a science when you are asking about VAM's because it would be like DNA on humans, even though we are all humans we are all a little different but that small difference doesn't make us not a human. Same way with VAM's, a specific VAM will have the same attributes and even though there may be clashing or some other anomaly on this one and not on that one that doesn't mean its not that that specific VAM. So just as all human DNA is like 99.9% the same just because that 1% may be a huge difference it doesn't make them not a human. Even though I understand what hemisboat is trying to say, if most people have seen me attribute a coin I very rarely use the letters that have been added to the main characteristics of a spcific VAM (example is the 33A a couple days ago) The main reason is I am trying to just give the person asking a place to look and not have to look through the whole book to see for themselves the attributes of each difference. And another reason is I find myself usually even when looking at my own coins I will look at the main attributes to determine die pair first (specific VAM without any letters) then I may go back to determine which stage the die pair was in when the coin was struck but if I determine the die pair makes it a VAM-33 I know where to start to do further research to determine stage. Just because there are numbers added to the die pairs doesn't mean its a whole different special thing, of course the stage of the die can be important but I usually leave that up to the person asking the question to determine themselves if its worth even looking to see if there are added attributes to justify a added letter to the die pairing

As far as someone proving Leroy Van Allen and George Mallis is wrong would not ever be done because they are what VAM means, sure someone else may decide to write a whole different book and call the die pairs anything from peach fuzz coins to anything else but they can not call it a VAM because it isn't unless these guys say it is simple as that. It is like any other attributor, they use their own lingo and terms to verify a specific die pair and none of them is wrong unless they are trying to call their coins a entirely different number than the person who wrote the original book did. Just remember without Leroy or George there is no VAM's, Just like Overton numbers, you can't just make up your own number system and call it a specific overton number because you would be a quack, so trying to call something a VAM and calling these two guys that wrote the book wrong is going to do nothing but make you look like a quack, and yes many quacks have a small following willing to believe anything they are told, once they are all gone it doesn't change the fact they were all just led by a quack and that in turn turned them into a quack themselves

Don't think twice about that hemisboats, I highly doubt that anyone construed anything you said to be demeaning to the VAM book authors. If Bryan was singling anyone out, it would have been I.


While virtually all credit for silver dollar variety knowledge is given to these two gentlemen as being 'the' original pioneers, they were not. Granted, they undoubtedly have had a much larger impact on the hobby than anyone before or since their rise to fame and glory, but there were earlier pioneers in the realm of Morgan dollar varities which included names like Frank Spadone, Francis Klaes, Neil Shafer, Charles Wallace, Howard Newcomb, and Melvin Carmichael to name a few.

The particular reason that silver dollar varieties are now called vams rather than Newcombs or Carmichaels is open to specualation, but I would think that the team of Mallis/Van Allen was inherently dynamic due to the intense devotion that both Mallis and Van Allen applied to the hobby, coupled with their educational and intellectual backgrounds.

All others mentioned above were also authors of literary works on the subject of silver dollar varieties, but for whatever reasons, the dynamic duo gained the spotlight and the rest fell into the relative shadows.

George Mallis, unfortunately, passed away several years ago and today, Mr Van Allen is left alone to toil over an seemingly impossible task.

While I can honestly say that if I were in his shoes, I would do many things differently, I can also say that I could not even come anywhere close to doing anything as well as he continues to do. (I really do wish that he would nuke those Interest/Rarity factors though).

That last paragraph says it all, and very well said at that!

believe me I would never call anyone a quack nor was I saying that you were saying they were wrong. I was just stating that since their name is where the term VAM comes from there is no way to say they are wrong about any of their attributions or information because VAM is their own creation. If anyone disagreed with them they could write their own book and do their own study and they can call the die pairs what ever they want but in my opinion they could not call their numbering system a VAM

I think if everyone would watch the video by Jeff Oxman and Ashe Harrison here they would understand its allot more than just an opinion, there is a definite science to VAM's http://www.coincommunity.info/video...xpo-02-2010/ and it also kind of goes along with what I was saying if someone wants to create their own numbering system they can but they wouldn't be able to call it a VAM

I believe "extension" is a key word here. I didn't say it would die with him but I am saying I don't think it would ever be accepted if someone redid his whole works and say like called a VAM-44 a VAM-1 I mean its just not going to happen. Another thing if the same die pair was used as a VAM-44 there is no other thing it can be but a VAM-44 with a letter behind it no matter what die stage its at. Sure there may be another die pair that they do not have covered and when that happens well you just go up another number from the last one they found but no way to say this is the same die pair but just becuse this is a earlier or later stage it should be called a different number than the rest with the same pairing