81 Morgan... what's with this die? New VAM? Will I be famous?

[rynegold-migration]

Digging about to find coins to grade, I took a closer look at the date on this coin and it "looks" like an 8 over an 8. I've looked about to find such an error/VAM and find nothing. Opinions?

 

 

by , on Flickr[/img]

 

The other (2nd) 8:

 

DSC09173 by rynegold, on Flickr[/img]

 

The reverse:

 

DSC09176 by rynegold, on Flickr[/img]

 

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8728/17236076621_eeb4703d1b_c.jpg' alt='17236076621_eeb4703d1b_c.jpg'>DSC09175 by rynegold, on Flickr[/img]

 

regards, mitch

[MarkFeld]

Can you post a reverse image?

[cpm9ball]

VAMWorld lists 19 varieties that have doubling on the date. Since you have the coin in hand, it would be much easier for you to compare your coin with them.

 

http://www.vamworld.com/1881-P+VAMs

 

FWIW, there are no major VAM's listed for the 1881, so I suggest you keep your job.

 

Chris

[rynegold-migration]

Hmmm.... now looking closer, there's an anomaly concerning the "1" as well:

 

DSC09178 by rynegold, on Flickr[/img]

 

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8754/17237074885_9f2a0d4510_c.jpg' alt='17237074885_9f2a0d4510_c.jpg'>DSC09180 by rynegold, on Flickr[/img]

 

Any thoughts appreciated.

[MarkFeld]

Thanks for the reverse images.

 

Based on just the obverse, I had some question as to whether the coin was genuine. But the reverse images lead me to believe it's OK.

[rynegold-migration]

Thanks cpm!

 

My coin exactly:

 

http://www.vamworld.com/1881-P+VAM-9

[KeyMan64]

Although it is not a major VAM, congrats are still in order. It's always fun to find something!

[Kurtdog]

I don't care what VAM imagines, that date is from the strike, and those dies are later-state.

[RWB]

Hmmm...a very, very, very late 1880 die state....rolled into 1881.

[messydesk]

I don't care what VAM imagines, that date is from the strike, and those dies are later-state.

Not sure what you mean here, because the doubling on the surface of the first 8 is not strike doubling. It is in the die that way. The chip between the loops of the 8 does indicate a later die stage.

[Kurtdog]

I don't care what VAM imagines, that date is from the strike, and those dies are later-state.

Not sure what you mean here, because the doubling on the surface of the first 8 is not strike doubling. It is in the die that way. The chip between the loops of the 8 does indicate a later die stage.

The superior or "top" images are deformed, how can that be from the die?

 

EDIT: In die doubling, the superior images are intact.

[messydesk]

There are several doubled/repunched dates from 1880-82 that show this effect in the die. The 18 is already in the working die, and then a 4-digit date is punched over it to give a thick 18 and a not-so-thick last 2 digits. The defects on the surface of the first 8 may be a hub defect, made immaterial by the punching of the full date. The big bite out of the top right loop of the first 8 is how this usually manifests itself. Misregistration with the hub-punched date causes the extra rims around parts of the inside or outside of the digit.

[Kurtdog]

There are several doubled/repunched dates from 1880-82 that show this effect in the die. The 18 is already in the working die, and then a 4-digit date is punched over it to give a thick 18 and a not-so-thick last 2 digits. The defects on the surface of the first 8 may be a hub defect, made immaterial by the punching of the full date. The big bite out of the top right loop of the first 8 is how this usually manifests itself. Misregistration with the hub-punched date causes the extra rims around parts of the inside or outside of the digit.

Ah, then I was looking at this too narrowly. Thanks for this, John. I'll keep it in mind.