| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 215 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
352 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
352 Posts |
I believe that both dies may be unique to this example. VAM-2 looks like the correct date position but the pickups don't match. The mintmark appears to be lower than any of the known 1896-S Reverses. Questions and comments are welcomed.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2368 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
352 Posts |
Thanks for the reply smat. The pictures were taken from directly above with a microscope and the MM position in the pictures matches the coin itself.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2594 Posts |
you may be right. have you presented this to the people at VAMworld?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2368 Posts |
Quote:
you may be right. have you presented this to the people at VAMworld? That's exactly what I was thinking since that IS their main focus. Keep us updated. smat |
|
Valued Member
United States
352 Posts |
I posted pictures to VAMWorld at the beginning of the week. I got a few replies, most of them regarding the coins authenticity. John Baumgart (messydesk) commented that the mint mark position is "decidedly low" and that one die pair with a low mint mark was identified during a study but it had a normally positioned date. I haven't had any new replies for a few days so I figured I'd see what the Coin Community thought. Thanks smat & MrPink2018 for the feedback, I appreciate it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2594 Posts |
well... there are very few listings for that date & mint. the mm's positioning doesn't seem to match anything there. admittedly, when I first looked at your pix, the very low mm stuck out, as did the near or very near date. I don't know if I'm seeing any doubling on the date, maybe-- *maybe*-- some on the 8 & 9. also looks like maybe tiny die chips between the 8's outer loops, which isn't uncommon, but could be a pick-up point. the clashing in the usual places is easy to see. does any of the clashing look doubled? is there a bit of a clashed n at Liberty's neck? and do you see any other doubling of any of the devices? I don't see any major die cracks, though I think I see a small one connecting the tops of the letters N & I in UNITED. does the mm look doubled or repunched?  Edited by MrPink2018
Today 19H 37M ago
|
|
Valued Member
United States
352 Posts |
Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough reply MrPink. To answer your questions: Most or all of the clashing appears to be doubled. As for a letter transfer, I did note an outline along the neckline that may be a clashed n. For device doubling, I believe that there may be some on the obverse from the tip of the nose up to the hairline, particularly on the forehead (I'm curious if this may actually be counterclashing). There's very little die cracking at all; given the apparent scarcity of this potential new VAM, my theory is that the coin was struck from relatively new dies and that when the clashing occurred they just moved on to a new die pair. According to VAMWorld there were 35 obverse and 26 reverse dies used for the 1896-S so there should have been plenty available. I don't have much experience with RPMs but I don't notice any obvious repunching, certainly not like the S/S on VAMs 5, 6 and 8. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions, thank you again. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2594 Posts |
no further questions, your unimpossible honor.   |
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 215 |
|
Posted 08/07/2026 12:05 pm
