1902-O Morgan: VAM Attribution

I do see a lot of guessing....I think this year broke the bank!
from the die is the die IDEA...TO the Multiple die's IDEA
THIS very Idea,,, rips apart the fundamentals of "OLD TIMERS" Vamming principles......So sorry to say....But it is what it is.....I will check on it up later.....still the pictures are slanted... not direct views.... let you all figure that out....

Hopefully these pictures are better.

What would these die markers be? I could look at the coin with my loupe and then post if I see it or not.

Thanks for your help.

the VAM 12 has 2nd olive reverse....looking over the book last night made me thing of VAM 51.....reviewing your photo's..I have expanded them
your date placement and MM looks good....you will need to verify by loupe these last 2 attribution points for this VAM...the are the die gouge that runs through The "TRU" of trust, not shown of vamworld but its in the book as a Pick up point...


you will then need to go to vamworld and check out how the ear is slightly doubled and compare it with your ear...if so that will lock it in as a VAM 51...this photo does show the doubling but its not defined as the VM pictures are....the upper outer ear is slightly doubled.it looks dark in this expanded shot of yours...

good luck....

I was going to try and gracefully let this thread die, but you folks just keep it going like the Energizer Bunny:)

The subject coin of this thread is not a VAM-51. The date placement is all wrong, unless you want to invoke the "die classification" thing. If you do, then the coin will need a doubled ear like the VAM-51.

Several 1902-Os can be attributed quickly via either the clashed letter transfer, or other distinguishing, strong or otherwise obvious die markers which make attribution short order.

The rest of the 1902-Os are mind-numbing. They are plain-jane coins pressed from non-descript dies. This makes the 02-O series tuff when you have such a coin. Without good quality photos and the ability to take good close-ups, I cannot be of help. Hence my suggestion to think about the monetary aspect of this attribution question, and the importance to Vamming as a whole.

ufans question about the "lump" above the left shoulder gap is a non-starter, in that I have not seen or documented anything like that. I suspect it is just PMD in the field. But only the Owner of the coin can tell differently due to the lack of detail on the photos. If it is a die chip, then I stand corrected, and the coin should be looked at by someone else.

Hope that helps!!, but likely not.

The 02-O Guide was put together by the following sequence of events.

First of all, if you look at the VAM Listings, there is a mind-numbing amount of reverse doubling. Doubled olive leaves (top of top leaf, middle of middle leaf, top and bottom of lower leaf, etc., etc.), double top of arrow feathers, doubled middle of middle arrow feathers, doubled right talons, doubled bottom of bottom arrow head, doubled top of Motto, doubled bottom of Motto, doubled top of top Legend, doubled bottom of bottom of Legend, doubled left and center Legend, doubled right top of eagle's right wing, doubled eagles eye, doubled eagles beak, etc., etc. Take any and all of these, mix and match to you heart's desire, and you will find a 1902-O with this description of the reverse.

The 1902-O Guide was put together to avoid this whole mess of mind-numbing reverse doubling. It makes your head hurt. In the course of putting the Guide together, it was recognized that the C4 hub had a lot of doubling in it to start with. When you take a die hubbed with a C3 reverse, and re-hub that die with a C4 reverse (say C4/C3), then the possible doubling becomes mind-numbing, as it is.

I tried to attribute a 1902-O and coudn't. I sent it to Leroy, and he attributed it as a VAM-X. I got it back, and said now way Jose. So I sent the same coin to John Roberts at ANACS. He attributed the coin as a VAM-Y. I got the coin back, and said no way Jose. I then sent the same coin back to Leroy, and he attributed it as a VAM-Z. I got the coin back, and said no way Jose.

It was at that moment that it was decided to do a 1902-O Attribution Guide. It may not be perfect, but it is the best thing around for attributing that series. If the author of the 1902-O Guide had to do it again, he would do some things different, mostly from lessons learned putting the 1904-O Guide together. If the 1902-O Guide ever warrants updating, it would likely be more user friendly and accurate for attribution. But as it is, it is the best thing available for the series.

You can reword what I said any way you want to pal.... the truth remains unchanged.