Posted 06/29/2021 5:51 pm
Quote:
I don't know why they keep referring to it as a 1988 WAM FS101 when all 1988's are a WAM.
It makes it sound like a WAM is special.
I don't know why they keep referring to it as a 1988 WAM FS101 when all 1988's are a WAM.
It makes it sound like a WAM is special.
I agree that the designation WAM is confusing. However, most people forget that the 1988 WAM's were actually the last of the WAM/CLAM varieties discovered and I think they chose that name because all three WAM varieties ( 1998-2000, common 1992 and the 1988) share the same FG design. Calling them all WAM's emphasizes their shared elements.
Of course, no one uses the actual designation WAM for the common 1992 cent, but that's technically what it is. Also, WAM is probably more descriptive than say "reverse of 89" for instance because you'd have to know what the reverse of a 1989 coin looks like to understand that reference.
I actually find the designation somewhat helpful in a counterintuitive way because I find searching those years just by looking for at the FG is easier.
Also, I agree that the OP's coin is not a WAM.
