| Author |
 Replies: 265 / Views: 17,271 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2669 Posts |
Hi again  The VAM site listed everything as R-6 whenever I clicked on anything 1921 Morgan related. Does the VAM book list true rarity? Does anything? thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
to be honest I am not 100% sure how they can say one is a R-6 and another is a R-7 but they do. I can tell you I have seen some R4's and 5's sell for more than some R-6's in the same grade. I am guessing that is just because they are rare doesn't mean they have the interest to make the price follow rarity. One example was the 1878 B1 reverse VAM-84-A it was said this thing was a R-6 when the VAM-84 was something like a R-3 or 4. The difference between the two is one is a EDS with no clashing (the VAM-84) and the other shows clashing pretty prominently on both Obverse and Reverse (the 84-A). The VAM-84-A is so common I bet about 90% of coins that are VAM-84 are actually 84-A's because it happened pretty early in the dies life, but the 84-A got a little popularity with the "clashed die VAM book" and was supposed to be the next great thing for 1878 VAM hunters (even though NGC had been attributing these as VAM-84 with clashed E for years even though it had not been given the A by Leroy Van Allen yet). So in my opinion the VAM-84 is allot more rare than the VAM-84 with clashed E (VAM-84-A) but still they list the 84-A as a R-6 and the other as a 3 or 4 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
709 Posts |
The rarity factors given are in truth guesstimates at the time of the discovery by Leroy Van Allen and the late George Mallis.
Clearly some R-6 coins are not in reality R-6 at all. However, overall Leroy has been fairly consistent in his educated guesses. Coins with a great deal of clashing or prolific die breaks tended to have a short die production life.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
xshift, rarity numbers are absolutely meaningless as far as vamming goes. There are more incorrectly labeled with respect to rarity than there are correct. Check out the 1889 cc page for instance. VAM -1 is listed as R-3, but it is also listed as "may not exist". (Now that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it)? While on the 1889 cc page, check out the rest of the listings as far as rarity goes: vam-2 = R4, vam-3 = R4, vam-4 = R5, and ("VAM-5 is far and away the most common pair used.") although it is listed as vam-5 = R6. So what are you going to believe? |
|
Valued Member
United States
380 Posts |
I would not say meaningless. One thing to know about VAMs is that the list is a "Living List" which means it is constantly changing. Also know that the entire VAM listing is done by a Human. Leroy Van Allen, & there is NO HUMAN IN HISTORY, THAT IS PERFECT. (except me of course) ;) Rarity scale changes for certain VAMs do happen, but the rarity scale is an educated guess as Oz stated. New VAMs are discovered, and old VAMs killed, . Mostly by determining it is the same as another VAM just in a different stage for the die. So there are some VAMs which are "not known to exist" which does not mean they do not, just that the obv/rev die parings with the attributes in the listing have not been found and the listing was a probably a mistake. It remains out there as a good source of information. It also avoids the "Why does VAM-1 not exist?" questions for VAM based message boards. It is possible for one to exist, however unlikely. |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
I am well aware of LVA and 'the way things are'. Most people feel comfortable casting a blind eye and a deaf ear when it comes to the thought of questioning the written VAM scriptures. I however, am not a lemming, and do not consider pipe dreams to be 'educated guesses'. I would like to hear of some of these examples of rarity scale changes that have occurred, because I am aware of none. My original point was that if a vam-1 is not known to exist, how is it rated as R-3, while the most common VAM for that year/mint mark is rated as R-6 ? This has 'meaning'? Actually, the "Why does VAM-1 not exist?" questions for VAM based message boards is quite common, although I have yet to see a straight answer supporting this hocus pocus mentality. If it is not known to exist, then why is it listed and given a rarity factor with no die pairing to support this 'educated guess'? Eventually, vamming will undergo an age of enlightenment, and there are many who are chomping at the bits now, although pretending to wait patiently, because today, vamming is in the dark ages and is being kept there by the present system. |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
I must say, zeewool, that I'm a little distressed by your attitude. You're either not too close to what's actually happening and talking anyways, or you're choosing not to see the ongoing discussion among the people who will, through their existing expertise, be burdened with guiding VAMming into the future. Some of the most pointed questioners of the current system are those whose knowledge is the broadest, and whose street cred with VAMs will make them influential into the future regardless of who the "official" decisionmakers turn out to be. It's my guess that the future will involve the SSDC in an official capacity; obviously there will have to be some structure and SSDC is the logical choice to oversee that structure. The mistake many make (possibly yourself included) is to believe that there's been any sort of static framework in the past which dictated the present; far from it. The proof is in the prevalence of revisions being made these days, perhaps more changes involve revisions of previous knowledge than declaration of new varieties. In any event, one must attempt to take the broader view of VAMming. Look at the sheer size of the existing knowledgebase; there are possibly more Morgan varieties known than all other issues put together. Consider - there are something like 555 Overton varieties among all Half Dollars, and this includes differing marriages of existing dies. More than 3500 dies were produced to strike Morgans, and the potential number of die marriages in some mintage years far exceeds the total for all Halves combined. As of 2009 we're just beginning to comprehend the scope of it. There's at least a couple of decades of work left before we even get a feel for what the total will look like, and in that time it's reasonable to assume that there will be considerable change in the definition of what a " VAM" is. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
709 Posts |
I think the term rarity rating is confusing to some. It is better stated as 'relative rarity by die pair' as opposed to extant rarity of a specific date or mint mark. As an illustration, Bryan1315 cites the relative rarity of a 1878-P VAM 84 versus VAM 84A with clashed E. I have a PCGS 1878-P VAM 84 that is MS 63 DMPL. It was the only DMPL in the NGC registry until I had it crossed over to PCGS. In PCGS there are 4 DMPL's. Relatively speaking, it would qualify as a R-7 coin due to grade and the fact that it is DMPL. That is up until someone finds a roll of them and then relatively speaking, their rarity would go down. So the operative word here is relative rarity as opposed to extant rarity of date and mint mark. Zeewool cites the 1889-CC in her view of relative rarity. The 1889-CC VAM 4 by many accounts represents about 4% of the extant mintage of the 1889-CC. It's clashed counter part with the clashed E represents about 2% of the VAM 4 mintage. Of interest here is the VAM 4 comes in a clashed and none clashed version. To have VAM 4 transform into VAM 4A there must be a letter transfer.In this case a clashed E. As the die has repeated strikings the clashed E mushrooms out obliterating the clashed E. VAM 4A then becomes VAM 4 again. Or if the coin had a clashed E and now due to wear from circulation, the clashed E isn't visible anymore, it too is classified as a VAM 4. VAM 4A with clashed E relatively speaking is quite rare. It is considered a relative rarity that over the course of time may indeed be ultra rare. That all changes if someone finds a roll of them or unearths several specimens. Zeewool does make an interesting point. Rarity ratings are not updated. As such, as more and more of the extant Morgan and Peace dollar populations are VAM attributed, the rarity ratings assigned to coins will become less and less meaningful with each coin examined. Some coins with their assigned rarity ratings will stand the test of time, some will be more rare than thought, and others will be more plentiful than originally thought. |
|
Valued Member
United States
133 Posts |
In terms of die marriages, a coin is what it is. Do you say rarity 7 or 7 rarity, one is just said backwards. The interest factor is what counts in this post. The guys interest went up and Lou hooked them!!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Quote:
I must say, zeewool, that I'm a little distressed by your attitude Well, ' I ' must say SuperDave, that I'm more than just a little distressed by my attitude as well. A little trip down memory lane, and it really isn't all that pleasant for me, I look back at this, and think that we should have gotten rid of that zeewool when we had the chance. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
709 Posts |
There is something of interest here. What constitues VAM 1? My understanding of VAM 1 is a normal die without any distinguishing features. In effect, it is used at times as a default number. When one can not attribute a VAM, it is VAM 1. I have have a chance to study the 1895-S. 1895-S is a rare date. The distinquishing features of VAM 5, the newest VAM are to use overlays on the mint mark placement. For years, if a coin wasn't VAM 2 S mintmark tilted left, or VAM 3 mintmark S?S or VAM 4 S over horizontal S, it was listed as VAM 1. An interesting fact, there are no pictures of VAM 1. VAM 1 likely does not exist. In effect, it is used as a default number. Some of the why of this due to technology and better imaging equipment. Back in the late fifties and early sixties when Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis were cataloging vams, the best imaging eqipment was a polaroid camera. This was before the digital age. The two made use of copious notes. |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
A little trip down memory lane, and it really isn't all that pleasant for me, I look back at this, and think that we should have gotten rid of that zeewool when we had the chance. Anyone who wants to get rid of you has to come through me.  Quote:There is something of interest here. What constitues VAM 1? My understanding of VAM 1 is a normal die without any distinguishing features ....which goes to my argument in the other thread concerning VAMming not being about the dies. Just to pull a random date out of my head as a "for instance," which of the 80 die pairs produced for 1886-P Morgans is struck VAM-1, and why is it the only "Normal" die? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
709 Posts |
Super Dave, for what it is worth, vamming is headed in the direction of being all about dies and die pairings. You see some of this with John Roberts excellent 1878-CC book. You see this with Alan Scott's 1902-O attribution guide. You will see the same thing with Alan's upcomming 1904-O attribution guide.
In researching 1895-S, with two new listings and a revision, you see this as well.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
I sort of remember the big swtcharoo of the 95-S varieties as far as designations go, but it was a bit over my head at the time. I never even looked at a coin before April of last year, and that is no exaggeration.
Thanks for the protective support Dave.
Could you please supply a link to the other thread concerning VAMming not being about the dies? Sounds fascinating.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
I think Zee and OZ hit the nail on the head....the fact is, this is a very re-occurring discussion about the rarity scale that SO MANY can't get a grip on, and that is simply due to the fact that it WILL NOT BE UPDATED...... Leroy is not going to halt all ongoing studies to revamp the well known rarity issues....its just not going to happen, the users of the scale know all to well the subjectivity to assigned VAM's and whether they are truly very hard to find or quite easy, despite the are factor..... And that is why many say THROW THE are VALUE OUT THE WINDOW...your leading us astray with fabricated numbers.... And that is why you really can't pay that much attention to it....HOWEVER the numbers there to tell us how great it is? It is only through other discussion pertaining to the specific VAM can one find out if its truly equal to its are rating.. those discussions happen everyday... But it can be quite annoying... |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
709 Posts |
Unless a coin is a late die state or ultra late die state bodering on terminal die state, the coin will be typically be given a R-5 rarity rating. The R-6 and R-7 ratings are given because it was or is generally thought the dies that produced them were short lived.
|
| |
Replies: 265 / Views: 17,271 |
Posted 09/22/2009 12:14 am
