| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 1,498 |
|
|
New Member
United States
23 Posts |
Can one VAM number come from 2 or more different pairs of dies? |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
380 Posts |
Here is best example I can come up with. I discovered the 1925-S VAM-3A. This coin shares the reverse of the VAM-3, but has a different obverse. However the reverse is where the VAM gets its attribution (doubled lower reverse and double/triple clash marks on eagles shoulder) So in this case. As long as the VAM-3 and 3A reverse is used, it can be paired with 20 different obverses (though highly unlikely) and it would still be a VAM-3B, C, D, E, so on... because the doubling in the reverse die is what "makes the VAM a VAM-3x" |
|
Valued Member
United States
434 Posts |
Sure. There are many Peace $ Top 50 varieties that have 2 or more dies. Of course the side (die) that has the error on doesn't change.
|
|
New Member
 United States
23 Posts |
I meant where both obv and rev dies were different. (If two obv and one rev are used together, and the error is on the rev, then that makes sense.)
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:Can one VAM number come from 2 or more different pairs of dies? In a perfect world, no. Like any other variety-assignment system in numismatics, a VAM should describe a specific die pair. Another die pair exhibiting the same characteristic break (or whatever feature) will still have discernible differences. Peaceman's example defines this - 3A, 3B, 3C, etc. are all different die pairs, even though they all share the same characteristic reverse die. In the real world, additional research after the designation of a VAM sometimes shows that one VAM is merely a different (earlier or later) die state of an already-designated pair. VAM numbers are constantly changing as a result. Remember, though - there are thousands of designated VAM's, hundreds of very serious collectors researching, and just one man at the center of it all, making these designations. The process is not immediate. |
|
New Member
United States
23 Posts |
Strange. Would think this could have been cleaned up long ago.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
It is cleaned up, in the sense that a specific VAM is and always was considered to be a specific die pair. The naming convention gets a little imprecise sometimes (as in Peaceman's example), but don't forget this is a work in progress and additional knowledge can change previous "certainties." Three hundred million Morgan dollars were minted. It will probably be another full generation before new Morgan varieties become hard to find. |
|
New Member
United States
23 Posts |
So. A specific VAM number always refers to one and only one pair of dies. |
|
Valued Member
United States
380 Posts |
The answer is yes... with exceptions. (there are always exceptions to the rule)
|
|
New Member
United States
23 Posts |
I thought I understood, but the "exceptions" part lost me. I understand about different VAM numbers sharing the same reverse and different obverse dies. But how can two totally different die pairs have the same VAM number? |
|
Valued Member
United States
380 Posts |
The exceptions are for the most part old errors that are hard to fix because of how long they have been attributed that way. So there are exceptions to the rule, but as a rule, 2 different die pairs will not produce the same VAM. (unless like I said above that the die pair maintains the same obv/rev that made the original VAM designation) |
|
Valued Member
United States
380 Posts |
Dont over think the exceptions. They are "exceptions" for a reason.
|
|
New Member
United States
23 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
434 Posts |
There is a lot of research that has to be done. Here's a 1923 VAM 1N and a 1924 VAM 1A. Two different years, two different dies.   |
|
New Member
United States
23 Posts |
They look slightly different to me -- and is that a fainter vertical line to the left, on the 1923 coin?
They have different numbers. My question was, were there ones that had the same number.
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 1,498 |
|
Posted 11/16/2009 9:59 pm
