| Author |
Replies: 26 / Views: 3,677 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
69 Posts |
Wait....just noticed something...look at your picture. Is that for an 1896-O or for an 1896-P? This is a Philadelphia Mint coin.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
lol I know I am double talking here but looking at the picture of the full obverse the date looks like it is set a little to the left as well so maybe it is a VAM-16 . I know I know I am not being much help here but I will almost guarantee its one of them and if the date is setting as far left as it looks in the one photo then I will change my mind from 10 to 16
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
those are all "P" mint the "O" in the pictures just means its of the "obverse"
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
69 Posts |
Oh....ok...after comparing two Morgans side by side...the date IS a little more to the left than usual. What is throwing me totally off though is the spread of the doubling BENEATH the date...or would consider that just mechanical? Yea...i'd go 16 as well after seeing the shifted date.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
69 Posts |
After comparing the two pictures above...16 is VERY identical to this coin!!!
Do you think we should get other opinions as well...maybe we've been looking at this coin for too long...afterall, isn't the FIRST rule of grading/attributing something along the lines of having a clear mind?!
Edited by gettinIT2getheragain 06/14/2006 4:48 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I beleive the other doubling is just mechanical and if it is shifted left and low (which I am positive its low) then I would be pretty positive to give it a VAM-16 attribution. there is no question on wether its low because that is the lowest date I have ever seen and from reading the book it clearly states the VAM-16 is the lowest date in the morgan series and I can see why, if it were any lower it would be on the rim
Edited by Bryan1315 06/14/2006 4:48 pm
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
69 Posts |
Sweet..thanks!!! What book are you using and where can we find one?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I was hoping maybe superdave or morganfred would jump in here and help with the attribution but I am going to stick with the VAM-16 unles they can convince me otherwise lol Edit: the book is the Comprehensive catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace dollars By Leroy C. Van Allen & George Mallis (the names VAM comes from)
Edited by Bryan1315 06/14/2006 4:51 pm
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
69 Posts |
I was hoping so also....those two NEVER cease to amaze me. On the other hand...I gotta give you credit for the work...THANKS!
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
My money for that coin is on VAM-6 with Machine Doubling. The lower doubling looks like the shelving which is characteristic of Machine Doubling. The thin line over the 6 extends too far forward for the VAM-10, and I think (although the pictures aren't definingly clear) that the date is too high to be "low." Look for the little spike over the lower loop of the 6. The die crack on the reverse is interesting (especially to me  ), but not definitive of a specific VAM. I suspect you would have no problem doing a date/mint set of Morgans requiring each to have a die crack. The polished details, however, are intriguing. Somebody went over that die with real motivation. Perhaps you might want to go over the obverse closely, looking to see of the almost-usual polishing lines around the bolls and LIBERTY are there - if they'd polished the die heavily enough to make hair detail go away, perhaps the usual polishing lines are gone to. Do you have the capability to examine the coin at greater magnification?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
hmm date looks low to me but I definately am not going to push my luck, I already swayed you from a attribution once before and am not going to try and do the same with this one. I will state that it looks awful close to the rim to me lol
Edited by Bryan1315 06/14/2006 5:58 pm
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
69 Posts |
OMG! SuperDave!!! You're RIGHT! There are polish lines by the boles. Even more so, the RTY of Liberty has some VERY definite characteristics of having been polished. The base serifs of the TY have been polished so much that they are worn down. In Bryan's defense, I do have to say that the date is low and more to the left than other Morgans that we have had. This is a good find...we thought it looked nice because of the strange toning...but this is MUCH BETTER!!! Now if we can all only agree on the VAM...LOL
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I have to say I am new to the VAM scene and I learn something new about every day, my real forte'is in 1878 Morgan VAM's and that has been my main interest and the rest I just look up when someone needs help and I try to help them attribute from the description and pictures in the VAM book
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
The pics were a little out-of-focus for me to be at all sure about the date location - that's why I asked about the spike over the lower loop of the 6, which is characteristic of VAM-6. I couls believe VAM-10 as easily, but the doubling on the 6 looks more like VAM-6.
My only 1896-P, a VAM-12, has the same missing details behind the ear. I wonder if that's characteristic of the master die.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
69 Posts |
I don't see a spike, but then again, my eyes could be fooling me just as easily. The first picture in the original post can easily be turned counterclockwise to show what you are asking about. That is about as clear a shot as we can muster. Thanks so much for the help guys!!!
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 26 / Views: 3,677 |
Page 2 of 2
|