1880-CC Morgan with Strange Appearance 1 1

[EagleRJO]

I saw this 1880-CC Morgan listed and it has a strange whitewashed like appearance that I have seen before and passed on, and will pass on again.  Possibly over-dipped?

[Mike Meenderink]

Improperly cleaned yes. Over dipped or another process which dulled coins surfaces. I see some tiny hairlines on both sides. Possibly scrubbed in some way. It's still a nice coin worth keeping here's why. First it's a Carson City coin with low mintage. The coin is around VF condition which makes it desirable to type set collectors. Also this coin is an 1880 CC rev of 1878 (The eagles breast is flat and the top arrows feathers are flat) which makes this 1880 CC a bit more rare than the regular strike 1880 CC rev of 1879. This is a VAM-7 Hit list 40 coin. Its valued around $175.00 as is graded VF Details Cleaned. Nice coin!

[EagleRJO]

I try to steer clear of details coins, particularly for average value Morgans like this one with good availability.  I seemed to recall this appearance was indicative of having been over-dipped so I was throwing that out there.

On 8/9/2023 at 10:08 AM, Mike Meenderink said:

 This is a VAM-7 Hit list 40 coin. Its valued around $175.00 as is graded VF Details Cleaned.

I don't think it's a VAM-7 as there doesn't appear to be an overdate mark below the second "8" in the date, or a small CC mark, like the attached from VamWorld.

[Mike Meenderink]

Agreed.. upon further inspection ( photo enlarged) the small mark which I saw as the bottom of the 7 below the 8 is not an overdate. It's just a tarnish spot.  Apologies. My eyes are bad in the AM. IMO the coin is perfect for a type set collector that wants a CC to fill a spot for reasonable a price. If it's priced reasonably Id consider purchasing it. Even details coins have a value. Usually a key or scarce decent condition coins value is diminished but not completely devastated by a details grade. If this came back Details Cleaned it would still be market acceptable. 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Mike Meenderink

[Coinbuf]

On 8/9/2023 at 5:45 AM, EagleRJO said:

I saw this 1880-CC Morgan listed and it has a strange whitewashed like appearance that I have seen before and passed on, and will pass on again.  Possibly over-dipped?

 

The photo seems over exposed so the coin may not be as bright or washed out as the photo suggests.   If you are really interested in the coin I'd suggest contacting the seller and see if additional pics are available.   If it does look like the photo then it is a coin you should pass on, a fitting coin for the troll's collection of trash, but not something that would be a good fit for your collection.   As you know this is not the VAM the troll suggests, nor is this a rare or difficult to find coin, there are better options.

[Coinbuf]

On 8/9/2023 at 4:06 PM, Mike Meenderink said:

Fuc off azzhole

I see you have reached the limits of your intellectual abilities.

[powermad5000]

With a mintage of only 495,000, I decided to put a little extra scrutiny to this coin.

@EagleRJO , from the NGC VarietyPlus page : 

The reverse die is one leftover from the 1878 coinage, with a Small CC mintmark and parallel arrow feathers.

Comments

All non-overdate 1880-CC dollars with the Reverse of 1878 are of the VAM-7 variety

It seems to have the parallel arrows and same spacing between the lettering and the denticles on the reverse as well as the somewhat fading UNITED lettering as the VAM-7. It is a little hard to tell the small CC mintmark, but the rest of the markers are on the reverse. The photo at the end of my post is from the NGC VarietyPlus page. 

All that said, though, the color definitely is "off". Even with a VAM designation, I doubt a collector of these would pay any kind of premium for it. I would say the coin's value would be around $120 in the state it is in.

[Newenglandrarities]

On 8/9/2023 at 7:06 PM, Mike Meenderink said:

Fuc off azzhole

Pretty bad, where did that comment come from.  Coinbuf response was absolutely correct and I don’t see what you were feeling to have that response. (troll maybe which you have done from reading your previous posts…) If you want to stay a member of the group, you should probably edit this response.  Coinbuf, if it matters or not, I’m sorry you got that response.  Ridiculous in my opinion….

edited to add. Mike, you literally got the coin attribution wrong, obvious not what you thought, and then made a derogatory statement to a member who often posts information and educational responses.  How can you explain yourself with your behavior and statement?  Terrible!

Edited August 10, 2023 by Newenglandrarities

[ldhair]

I think the guy wants to be banned. 

[Jason Abshier]

Yeppers ! Harshly cleaned !!! Looking at letterings and around bust you’ll see dirt or contaminants pushed into the crevices is usually a dead give away it been cleaned not once but attempted few times awkward looking (doesn’t look like toning to me) looks like dirt and contaminates … probably “rubbed”cleaned improperly with a soft rag then someone tried dipping several times left it in solution to long acid etched the surface of the coin  … sadly worth nothing but melt value now 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Jason Abshier

[EagleRJO]

I am starting to wounder if in addition to being over-dipped that this coin may be a counterfeit, and perhaps it was intentionally over-dipped to hide things.  It has a Reverse of 78 since the top clutched arrow feather is flat, which means it would need to be either a VAM-4 or VAM-7/VAM-7A since those are the only ones listed with that reverse.

http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/1880-CC_Reverses

However, the mint mark doesn't match either one, and the VAM-7 also isn't a match since there is no mark below the second "8" in the date.  In addition, the date position doesn't match either the VAM-4 or VAM-7.

Edited August 10, 2023 by EagleRJO

[Mike Meenderink]

On 8/9/2023 at 10:21 PM, Newenglandrarities said:

Pretty bad, where did that comment come from.  Coinbuf response was absolutely correct and I don’t see what you were feeling to have that response. (troll maybe which you have done from reading your previous posts…) If you want to stay a member of the group, you should probably edit this response.  Coinbuf, if it matters or not, I’m sorry you got that response.  Ridiculous in my opinion….

edited to add. Mike, you literally got the coin attribution wrong, obvious not what you thought, and then made a derogatory statement to a member who often posts information and educational responses.  How can you explain yourself with your behavior and statement?  Terrible!

When people insult me and talk smack for no reason I don't play dead. I did make a mistake and I was discussing it with the OP when Coinbutt decides to talk smack about my coins accuse me of being a troll etc..hes just a mess disturbing azzhole.

 

On 8/9/2023 at 8:12 PM, Coinbuf said:

I see you have reached the limits of your intellectual abilities.

As for you yours were limited from birth.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Mike Meenderink

[Mike Meenderink]

Notice how these guys didn't even see the post where I said I was wrong. They just want to keep pushing. Jesus this is going to be fun.

[RWB]

On 8/9/2023 at 8:45 AM, EagleRJO said:

I saw this 1880-CC Morgan listed and it has a strange whitewashed like appearance that I have seen before and passed on, and will pass on again.  Possibly over-dipped?

More likely cleaned with baking soda and a toothbrush, or possibly just soap and water.

Edited August 10, 2023 by RWB

[Just Bob]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:52 AM, EagleRJO said:

I am starting to wounder if in addition to being over-dipped that this coin may be a counterfeit, and perhaps it was intentionally over-dipped to hide things.  It has a Reverse of 78 since the top clutched arrow feather is flat, which means it would need to be either a VAM-4 or VAM-7/VAM-7A since those are the only ones listed with that reverse.

http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/1880-CC_Reverses

However, the mint mark doesn't match either one, and the VAM-7 also isn't a match since there is no mark below the second "8" in the date.  In addition, the date position doesn't match either the VAM-4 or VAM-7.

Is it possible that VAMworld doesn't list every existing die pair?

[RWB]

On 8/10/2023 at 1:32 PM, Just Bob said:

Is it possible that VAMworld doesn't list every existing die pair?

Certainly. They also list the same die pairs under multiple numbers. "VAMs" are not strictly die pairings but varieties based on idiosyncratic criteria.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/10/2023 at 1:32 PM, Just Bob said:

Is it possible that VAMworld doesn't list every existing die pair?

It could be a new VAM, but not likely.

[powermad5000]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:52 AM, EagleRJO said:

VAM-7 also isn't a match since there is no mark below the second "8" in the date

@EagleRJO  That is why I made the comment I did. It is in NGC VarietyPlus

All non-overdate 1880-CC dollars with the Reverse of 1878 are of the VAM-7 variety.

Any NON overdate is a VAM 7 or VAM 7A.

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by powermad5000

[Mike Meenderink]

On 8/10/2023 at 8:00 PM, powermad5000 said:

@EagleRJO  That is why I made the comment I did. It is in NGC VarietyPlus

All non-overdate 1880-CC dollars with the Reverse of 1878 are of the VAM-7 variety.

Any NON overdate is a VAM 7 or VAM 7A.

 

This is what my first inclination was but everyone jumped on me because they THINK I have no skills. I said all this at the first comment on this post. Some talked smack (coinbuf,idhair,goldfinger) thinking they know everything..well it looks like they were wrong again. hmmmm 

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

@Mike Meenderink You are really something else, eh?  I try to ignore and avoid you at all costs, but you are now getting a little too far over your skis. I think you need to understand that you are looking completely unintelligent and are on the verge of becoming a pariah in 144 posts (For the record, I started ignoring you at 20 posts, because you are mouthy and bring very little value).  That said, if you have these supreme numismatic "skills", create some posts and help people.  I would love to be able to find a redeeming intellectual quality in you.  However, my optimism is highly guarded.

Or... you can just keep on the way you are... keep being a mouthy airhead.  Everyone will eventually ignore you and your posts, and you will go back to the lonely existence from which you came.

Neither path really impacts me that much.  Your posts will always be a grey box for me, so I will not see them.  But, you can potentially save yourself,  make a friend.. and learn something.

Edited August 11, 2023 by The Neophyte Numismatist

[ldhair]

On 8/11/2023 at 10:14 AM, Mike Meenderink said:

Some talked smack (coinbuf,idhair,goldfinger) thinking they know everything..well it looks like they were wrong again. hmmmm

Get your facts straight. goldfinger has not even posted in this thread and I did not talk smack about you. Read the thread again and stop with the lies.

[Coinbuf]

On 8/10/2023 at 8:00 PM, powermad5000 said:

@EagleRJO  That is why I made the comment I did. It is in NGC VarietyPlus

All non-overdate 1880-CC dollars with the Reverse of 1878 are of the VAM-7 variety.

Any NON overdate is a VAM 7 or VAM 7A.

 

True, but it could be VAM4 which also uses the rev of 78, however, the photos are too poor to see the date clearly enough to verify or disqualify this coin as a VAM4.   What is true is that we can eliminate VAM7 as none of the markers are present.   So, without better photos all that can be said for sure is that this is either; VAM4, a discovery of a new rev of 78 coin, or as Eagle suggested a counterfeit that used the incorrect rev.

[Coinbuf]

On 8/11/2023 at 8:14 AM, Mike Meenderink said:

This is what my first inclination was but everyone jumped on me because they THINK I have no skills. I said all this at the first comment on this post. Some talked smack (coinbuf,idhair,goldfinger) thinking they know everything..well it looks like they were wrong again. hmmmm 

No we (or more correctly I) am correct that you have no clue.   There is another VAM that uses the rev of 78, you are making such a fool of yourself because you make statements of fact that are in fact not true.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Coinbuf

[EagleRJO]

With the flat top feather of the clutched arrows it's definitely a 78 reverse, which leaves a VAM 4, 7 or 7A, but none of those are a match as both the date and mark appear to be different.

That leaves either a new VAM or a counterfeit, and after this much time a new VAM is not very likely.  Also, getting the reverse wrong is a classic counterfeit flag.  So I am leaning towards counterfeit.