| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 2,296 |
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
252 Posts |
Hi folks... Not over on this side of the forum much but I've been scanning some stuff in lately and noticed how nice this looked.... Any info on it is much appreciated.  |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7375 Posts |
Weak obverse, but I don't see any circulation wear, so it could technically be MS65 or 66. Nice coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4944 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
457 Posts |
It may be just me, but I think I see some wear above the ear. I'll give it AU58 with a shot at 62.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
798 Posts |
It gives me the impression that its been cleaned but I don't think it has been. My rough estimate at a grade is MS-60.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4911 Posts |
used to be gem but the photos make me think over dipped in which case UNC. details
Feel free to call me Will.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
798 Posts |
If it was dipped I wonder how it looked before. Sometimes you gotta wonder if it was even worth it to clean or dip a coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1389 Posts |
Is there any luster? It's between AU and AU details IMHO.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1584 Posts |
Scans? Mid range MS I think.
|
|
Valued Member
 United Kingdom
252 Posts |
Yeah scans... Unfortunately I don't have good enough equipment to take good quality photos of coins :( Here's a couple Natural light with my point and shoot   natural light with my iphone   Edited by Red
02/19/2015 11:35 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1584 Posts |
In the new photos coin looks AU.
I mentioned scans earlier because scans often don't pickup detail or luster.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
There's a pretty big ding at 3:00 on the reverse.
MS details
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
OK, this is going to be a fun post.  First, the combination of the two image sources provides enough information to do some pretty advanced thinking about the coin, as you'll see in a minute. If you don't have professional equipment, one set for detail and another for luster does very nicely, thank you very much.  Now have a look here: http://www.vamworld.com/1887-P+VAM-14CYour images plainly show the characteristic "pinned wing" of VAM-14C. They don't show the stuff inside the D, which tends to prove the theory that this is 1F and not a 14x VAM. So this coin could be responsible for a concrete contribution to the hobby, depending on whether the question remains open. I'm going to ping a couple people who might know. Nice. Good AU, by the way. I can't help but see a little wear on the obverse. |
|
Valued Member
United States
149 Posts |
AU VAM 1F, too bad about the rim ding on the reverse. The VAM 14C was probably listed in error. Although the appearance of a die gouge while the die was in service is entirely possible, the marks inside the D of DOLLAR are probably an unpeeled lamination or occluded gas. Poking it with a stick would show this. I'm guessing the coin was certified when sent to Leroy Van Allen, and he couldn't do this. The date position is clearly near, although Leroy has occasionally listed this as "left edge of normal position," which appears to be what happened when he VAM 1F. We need to see the date position on the actual VAM 1F discovery coin (from 2008) for comparison. Assuming I'm right about the VAM 14C having a planchet flaw in the D, I'd be in favor of eliminating VAM 1F, and removing the "die gouge" from the description of VAM 14C. Not my call, though. |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Holy Cow, I just went through the whole V14 thing from all directions. I'm dizzy now. The first time through, I made the die gouge on inspection and found it immediately looking through Near Dates. Had no idea it was this tangled..
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
252 Posts |
Wow... Thanks for all the input guys :) I'd almost forgotten how detailed your die variations have been studied. Definitely a 1F, complete with all 3 cotton leaf die scratches and a fully clean D  Here's a close-up of the ding too... It is such a shame... although the ding itself looks unusual ?  |
| |
Replies: 16 / Views: 2,296 |
Posted 02/18/2015 4:34 pm
