Jaobler- Thanks for your post. Funny thing happened. After I read your post I looked at the picture again and could clearly see the "pimple" you referred to on the 9. So, knowing almost nothing at all about VAMS, I sought out VAMworld.com and spent a few hours there learning a little bit and looking for my
pimpled 9. I found nothing like it. Only then did I think to pull the coin out and look at it again under the magnifier. It was not there! I thought I was losing my mind, but eventually realized that it must have been something on the Mylar window casting a shadow even though in the picture it still doesn't look like that to me...it truly looks to be a part of the coin even now knowing it is not.
Anyway, all was not lost. I had posted another Morgan (an 1896) to this forum just 15 minutes before this one.
Amac44 had requested a close up of the date and I had no idea why. As that was puzzling me while I read your comment about a potential
VAM, it occurred to me that maybe he was asking for the date close-up because he thought
he saw a
VAM too. He never mentioned the word
VAM but because you did, I thought to investigate and found that in fact, the 1896 is a VAM-6. So
thank you!Also thanks for your kind words about my photography. I have been struggling with different kinds of lighting. After failing miserably with some fairly expensive equipment, this was a
stab in the dark technique I developed using an embarrassingly simple array of equipment. I took an $80 point-and-shoot Kodak 6.1 mp that I borrowed from my son and shot through a lighted swing arm magnifier with no additional lighting. I guess sometimes the more expensive way is just...
more expensive. Thanks again