EagleRJO

I think you are right, good eyes. I was comparing it to the "Tampered 3" from the CoinBook example (attached) which is a O-106A. But now when I look at a O-108A it does more closely match the listed coin with the thicker loop up at the top of the 3 and a single bump out on the right side of the thickened 3 in the middle. Now the 64-dollar question. Is the 1823 O-108A also considered a "Tampered 3" but just at a different die state, or is that referred to as something else?

@DWLange that is a great varieties reference, nice job. Any chance that maybe some descriptions may be added to the varieties at some point or is that a work in progress which I just haven't seen yet being totally new to that resource?

I see that in the ANA standards, and I am on the side of the fence its acceptable along with a light cleaning and even a light dip for older coins. But I have just been amazed at what I have been seeing recently for some of the Details - Cleaned graded coins where I am left scratching my head. So, if I suspect cleaning from a possible indicator like the vertical hairlines, I would point it out. And just because I think a raw coin has had a light cleaning or even a very light dip, particularly for older coins, I don't automatically reject that as an option because that was such a common practice in the past. I just like buying raw coins eyes wide open, and I guess just assume others would want to do the same.

I think the "Tampered 3" is a newer less common variety with a protruding area that has like nubs on the back right side of the 3 from die chips, described as follows from: 1823 Capped Bust Half Dollar All Varieties Lettered Edge Coin Value Prices, Photos & Info (usacoinbook.com) Attached is an image with the various date varieties referenced there, and an example for an 1823 O-106A variety which I think is a match for a "Tampered 3", from my new favorite web resource for that which is the NGC VarietyPlus. I did see those areas you mentioned but thought it was wear. I hadn't noticed the exact same wear/repair area on the obv and rev, but see that now if its a slightly rotated die. Thanks.

Thanks for the comments Sandon, much appreciated. I was wondering why you didn't chime in since you have a good handle on Morgans. Well, I guess that is all we had without the benefit of having the coin in-hand which I agree is the ultimate arbiter. And DWLange didn't agree it was cleaned, just me and a few others. Interesting that a lightly circulated coin can have that appearance and those vertical hairlines without being an indication of cleaning. I have seen less than that flagged by the TPGs as Details - Cleaned, with just the hint of some hairlines in one spot where I was scratching my head as to why. And about a possible new variety for that raw coin, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. I will leave that up the VAM enthusiasts to take a risk on that and submit it as a possible new one since it could come back in a coin body bag.

Wow, that is actually an excellent resource I didn't realize was there. Thanks, and props to DWLange.

Well, I guess that explains why I wasn't finding a good source or maybe one or two more books for those 1837+ half dollar varieties. But I guess it simplifies things somewhat if it's just the date and mark that vary. And talking about varieties for early half dollars I saw this one recently which seems to be a F to VF grade, with a Tampered-3 date mark which seems close, but maybe a little mashed from wear and contact damage?

Thanks, and maybe the OP's coin took a bad hit at the mark and D to spread and move them a bit to make them look a little different?

Also, aren't the vertical lines like on the obv to the right of the neck hair a sign of cleaning?

Me too if I was rushing a while back before there were spell checkers for everything. A long time ago someone said it's a "nick-elll" not a "nick-leee" and that kinda stuck.

I have a book of die varieties entitled "US Early Half Dollar Die Varieties 1794-1836" since I am interested in pre-1933 half dollars and may eventually do a one-a-year set. But what about varieties for 1837 half dollars going forward? I don't see any good online resources for that and there must be a companion book for varieties, but I can't find it. Searches seem to always come up with the book I have. Suggestions?

See the attached from PCGS CoinFacts which looks like that variety, although it's a lower VF-20 grade. Also see the attached comparisons for the mint mark. To me it looks like the mint mark for your coin is off, as it seems like it's a little to the right and closer to the wreath with no die chips present. It also looks like the CC letters on your coin are rotated a little counterclockwise compared to the legit VAM-6.

Also, what about eBay sellers who misrepresent a coin as an older more valuable coin, like this one from fashionandglamdesings who lists a common 2010 $1 coin worth about that as "1 dollar 16 President Abraham Lincoln 1861-1865 coins" implying that it's from the mid-1800's for a price of $500: 1 dollar 16 President Abraham Lincoln 1861-1865 coins | eBay And another one listed for, get this, $1,899 here .. 1 dollar lincoln | eBay

@DWLange I did look at that VAM-9. The obverse looks about right, and looks like it has the clipped star, but I think the reverse is off. I agree the listed coin may just be an early state die that does not have the polish lines between the O and the wreath. However, when I overlayed the two mint marks and DOL in dollar the rotation was a bit off (e.g. for the listed coin the left C in the mark is a little closer to the wreath, and the right one was a little lower). Attached is the example early state 1878-CC VAM-9 with no line at the O and an enlarged mark. Also, the shape of the C's is off as the listed one has a smaller space inside the letters, and has a smaller vertical gap on the right side of the C's vs the example with no line at the O. Later dies with the O line seem to have less of a gap. Plus, if you look at the D in dollar the listed one has little vertical extensions at the top left and lower left of the D that don't match the Vam-9. See attached enlargement of the mark and DOL for the listed coin. It looks to me that the obv and rev don't match, and maybe they used a similar but different rev which is a classic sign. Let me know if I am seeing things where there may be an explanation for that.

You have to be very careful with raw trade dollars as they are commonly faked. If you are going to go down that road reference a resource like Red Book or USA Coin Book to look up the physical properties to check and identify the various varieties and combinations of obverses and reverses for that year/mark, with an example of that attached. Then look up certified examples from say PCGS CoinFacts and rotate/overlay the various features to carefully compare the two. I have found a number of raw fakes just taking these basic steps. Just be aware that for a raw Trade Dollar there is still a risk though as some of the fakes are very good. [Be prepared to spend an untold number of hours learning about the varieties and things to check, and then more untold hours checking each raw coin your interested in, and accept there is still going to be risk as a non-expert. Or just minimize the risk by getting a slabbed certified one if that's not something you would accept and enjoy doing. But it is always good to know about what you are buying, reguardless of having an experts opinion on a label.] Also, I don't agree that the turn of a Trade Dollar is horizontal as indicated in the article, it is vertical. See the attached PCGS example which has the correct vertical coin turn (i.e. if you turn the coin vertically as in the PCGS example the eagle should be right-side-up). If you look at the source for that in the article, they correctly state that if you turn the coin horizontally the eagle should be upside down, but there is a typo on the direction the upside-down eagles head faces which is to the left, not the right as referenced. The author should have known that so take the rest of the article with grains of salt.

I took a look at varieties for an 1878-CC Morgan on VamWorld (http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/1878-CC_VAMs) and I don't see a match for that mint mark which is rotated right. I think its a counterfeit. Maybe someone else can give a second opinion on that and if a verified fake post the listing in the "Counterfeit Coins" thread so hopefully something can be done about that.

I agree cleaned or made to look that way as there Iis a dull grey appearance without a lot of wear, hairline scratches like to the right of the head, and crud within and around the characters and devices. That mint mark looks wrong to, so I would be very careful with that one. Might be a counterfeit.

Amen, and add to that list that all raw coins on eBay are either fakes, harshly cleaned or over-graded, and everybody's small date 1982-D penny is copper-plated which they haven't checked with a calubrated scale.

Okay, I am done with roll hunting for modern dollars. I just went through a wad of $1 rolls from the bank, and I was struggling to even make out a date and mark on the edge for most of the more recent ones due to wear and dings, and the rest were mostly really beat up older ones except for maybe a few in decent condition. Looks like I will be sticking with just roll hunting quarters and collecting the BU/PR Innovation dollars, and maybe down the road add BU/PR Presidential dollars if I want to work backwards.

Yea those too, but at least there is a full obverse design without large bare areas that has the mint mark.

Thanks for looking. At least that confirms die rotation tolerance is not set by statue. Idk about 27 degrees, maybe something got lost along the line and it was supposed to be 7 degrees, which would make a lot more sense and which I have also heard is the tolerance used. There is some added value to coins with a rotated die above 15 degrees, and in some cases between 10 and 15 degrees as discussed in the linked PCGS info, with a cataloged III-G-3 rotation error starting at over 15 degrees: So, for there to be added value for a coin with a 10 to 15 degree die rotation the accepted tolerance would need to be less than 10 degrees, otherwise it's just a normal coin with no added value.

They really could have "innovated" a better obverse design imo that wasn't exactly the same for every coin. I have all of the coins turned so that the reverse is what jumps out in my collection binder.

This is an old thread I found doing some research on certain coins, and I thought it was worth reviving as counterfeiting does harm to collectors which has been discussed in a few recent threads.

@Mr.Bill347 Nice, do you collect the Proof and Rev Proof coins too? I have been going with the capsules since the proof coins from the mint come in them and I figured for like 75C I would put the BU ones in capsules also for protection, even though they are mostly only valued at like $6 to $8.

That coin just looks all wrong.