VAM Numbering System

The underlying problem, to me, is one of attitude and not structure. The original set of rules, as defined by Van Allen and Malis, still works but does not scale up to the present cacophony of varieties in any coherent sense. The only change required, though, is one of clarification. A set of fundamental rules needs to be promulgated - "This is the circumstance under which an entirely new number gats assigned. This is the circumstance under which a sub-designator happens. This is what you do when you prove a previously-unknown relationship." Publish it. Set it in stone. If Leroy Van Allen himself does this, nobody will be able to question it going forward.

Maybe "the die is the die" is unrealistic. Maybe it should be "the hub is the hub." A really good example is the dizzying variety of 1921 Scribbles varieties. It represents number creep at its' finest, but also is likely the closest we've ever come to defining varieties by die.

Either way, all of the objections to radical revamping of the numbering system (and I do not advocate a ground-up renumbering, but gradual change as new information comes to light) have to do with public acceptance (again, what do the TPG's have to do with it?). However we choose to slice it, the variety is the variety and in the presence of a clear, sensible, functional rules set, everybody can get on the same page and move forward regardless of how different the new reality may be from the old.

The TPG's play a huge part in the minds of their customers, of course, for the reasons you state. But they cannot dictate the course of attribution, when their vested interest is in lack of change. Even the most vocal opponents of change freely admit that there are problems, and even in the current system numbers change all the time.

If the TPG's choose not to change with the times - and I do not argue reasonable compensation for reslabbing a changed attribution which is something collectors already have to put up with under the current system - it's not a united front. Should PCGS and NGC (for instance) choose to be recalcitrant about changing attributions, it's a wonderful chance for ANACS to build some big market share.

In fact, that's how I see it happening.

It's not like there isn't precedent for it - there have been different attributors over time that gave a series new variety numbers. On the other hand, how many different, current, attributions can one Lincoln Cent have? (You want a nightmare? Have a large Lincoln Cent variety collection and try to figure out and keep track of all the numbering systems.) Let's see.. we have Wexler, Copper Coins, Fivaz/Stanton, CONECA, and at least 2 others, all different variety numbers denoting the same variety. How many times have we seen "Former KM# XX.x" in the World Coin catalogs? Changing the VAM numbers may only be a small bump in the road with all the experience we already have juggling all these others.

I just hope the basis for any change is rooted somewhere in fact or logic. Otherwise we might as well keep traveling this same road.

GUIDELINES FOR THINGS LISTED AS DIE VARIETIES



By Leroy Van Allen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

•Die doubling on the devices, letters stars and date digits have to be readily visible using a 7X or 10X hand magnifying glass that the average collector uses at coin shows and shops when searching for die varieties. A 20X or 30X stereo microscope is useful to check die doubling but not reason enough to list doubling unless visible with hand magnifying glass.Die
•Slight die doubling on a few obverse stars or a few reverse wreath leaves are generally too minor to list by themselves as they are fairly common. Doubling has to be on all left or right stars to list or on most of left or right wreath leaf clusters to list.
•Die chips, breaks, scratches & gouges have to be readily visible to the naked eye to list. Tiny die chips are very common as dies wore out from use. Likewise, die breaks to be listed have to wide & high chunks out of the die and visible to the naked eye and not just thin shallow die cracks. Thin, shallow die cracks are extremely common as dies wore out & we don't list them.
•Scratches are fairly thin and high lines while gouges are wide and high bars. They have to be long enough to be readily visible to the naked eye.
•Scratches and gouges in the denticles are generally not listed because they are well hidden and not visible to the naked eye.
•Denticles, date and stars that have shiny edges that have been pushed in and indented occur when the coin was struck and then pushed out of the collar, or die slid sideways during striking of a coin. A striking error that we don't list - we only list die varieties.
•Flat, shiny, top doubling on edges of obverse or reverse motto or legend letters or date and stars is from Machine Doubling. It occurs when there is looseness in the coin press mechanism and dies bounce slightly during the striking of the coin. It is most common on the reverse for the Morgan dollar and on the obverse for the Peace dollar. Machine Doubling tends to reduce the original design. Die doubling has dull, rounded surfaces. It enlarges the original design. Machine Doubling isn't listed since it isn't a die variety.
•Tiny thin, short raised lines on the device not visible to the naked eye aren't something listed separately. They might be useful as a die marker however, if needed.
•Fine thin polishing lines in Liberty's head, on the eagle, or wreaths are extremely common on Morgan dollars and are generally not visible to the naked eye. Therefore, they aren't something that is listed. Only list those that are unusually heavy & thick. Sometimes used as die markers however.
•Polishing lines have to be over much of the fields and visible to the naked eye or extremely bold in the device to list. Isolated die polishing lines in fields aren't listed as die varieties by themselves. Can be used as die markers if needed.
•Polishing roughness in wreath bow & leaves is also very common and generally not visible to the naked eye as they are well hidden. So it isn't listed. Polishing roughness can occur around the legend letters causing a rough outline and parts of the letters that don't follow the letters exactly. It isn't die doubling, which follows the letter shape exactly. Generally, the polishing roughness around the letters is not listed unless it is very severe.
•Rim Cud die breaks that don't extend through the denticles into the field aren't listed. Retained Cuds can be listed and are formed when a die crack extends rim to rim with some displacement of the field.
•A displaced field die break can be listed if a die crack has the adjacent field raised or tilted to form a different angle of the flat field visible to the naked eye.
•Missing design elements can be listed from over polishing if visible to the naked eye.
•Common die clash marks that aren't letters aren't listed (clash marks with no letter transfer). Only clashed letters on obverse and reverse are listed. An exception is on Peace dollars that can have a clashed spike up from the eagles' right shoulder from the obverse back of Liberty's head and neck. Shorter single spikes aren't listed unless they are long enough to reach UN. Double and triple clashed spikes are listed.

Wow Russ, not one thing about it sounds 'stupid' to me.....everyone has their own unique story behind their collecting (or hoarding) habits.....and that is what has always interested me the most....the people and their experiences....that is what I will remember about this adventure into the world of coins.....I certainly won't remember the coins.....That is a very interesting story....was there a specific motivation behind the hoarding? One thousand silver dollars is quite a sight, did you ever just grab handfuls and let them drop through your fingers (the Uncle Scrooge syndrome)? Maybe you are just attracted to bright shiny things? (Just kidding about that one). 'Why the hoarding' is what I am asking I guess, surely you had visions of something.


.....................................................................


Thanks very much for that list of guidelines Oz.....(I hope that you had a means of copying and pasting rather than typing it all out).

Highly useful (in my opinion) to know the source's rules to whom one would be sending the potential coin candidates.

I might think that armed with this information, a person could very well make their own decision on whether or not a coin is worthy of submission.

One thing that I did not notice that I would think should be included might be a limitation on grade cutoff.....is there such a thing.....Fine or Very Fine, etc?

edited for grammar.

Thank you Oz.....that is exactly what I wanted to know.

PM sent Russ...

To the extent of what you posted, Ozland, Leroy has been true and remains consistent to this day. What is lacking, though, is the bent towards identifying individual die pairs, as is customary with all earlier- and lesser-minted vintages. Not having seen all that in one place before, I'm left wondering if he was wise enough, long enough ago, to realize that individual die-pair identification was an unachievable goal and concentrated his attention on what was possible.

All the same, it is in the DNA of any variety-oriented numismatist to wish to drill down to the lowest-possible common denominator of the coins he/she studies. Although I quite agree with his standards, they do not fully define any specific direction of implementation which would be both comfortable, and expected, by someone accustomed to collecting early Large Cents by Sheldon variety.

The problem with the huge die quantities characteristic of Morgans is, in my opinion, balanced by the huge technological advantage we enjoy over previous researchers. It's not so much the increased optical resolution of our instruments - excellent optics have been available for centuries - but our computer-based interpretive skills able to resolve differences with a consistency that the naked eye and raw memory cannot. Build a jig, pass raw Morgans under an optical scanner of sufficient resolution, and it will now and forever settle whether that minuscule die scratch in Liberty's hair is one-thousandth different from the next or identical. It's all the difference in the world, and we could never see it before.

Again, though, and it's becoming a recurring point in my thinking, does it resolve the die or just the hub?

Wrong forum....My apologies.