VAMWorld 2.0

Wow! Congratulations! Everyone deserves a break once in a while to stay motivated.

I'm a no as well. Even on well worn coins you can pick use PUPs to assist in analysis. In this case I don't see them. Attached is a 1a1 that is very abused, and my file pictures are not great, but the pick up points (obverse crack B-U, reverse profile) are reasonably visible.

Might take a look at V45. Similar scratches in field around mm and similar date doubling. Can't tell if profile is doubled as listed for V45 from the pics you provided. I don't think that mark at the neck is a clash - orientation is off and no other signs of clash I noticed.

Thanks for sharing that

I see. This does have weak clashed, but none of the other attributes, so I thought it might be of interest in his work. I did a little more work to de-gunk the wing gouge area and took a closeup, and don't think that feature is there either.
Thanks

I was thinking same thing, and that could certainly be the case. Just didn't see any of the critical attributes.

Might this be the 1891 O VAM 14 you were wondering about? Noted the faint neck clash, wing-n clash, slanted normal date, and bottom filled o in God. Purchased this as semi-cull and expected it to be 14a once the gunk was removed. Once I got this in hand, I saw no clashed M, no clash from bottom of n...

This is wonderful work. Thank you for all the effort you invested to untangle this confusing mystery.

Don’t read in anything more than my disappointment. I’m grateful for this site and deeply appreciate the candid feedback of all members; and even more thankful of the effort of the experts.
The hunt continues.
Thanks

Looking at the 6b page, I read and interpreted the guidance below the 6b and 6a side by sides as written: 1. The VAM-6B listing needs a chunk broken away in the spot where the 'tilted field' to the left of the star had been, rather than the heavier 'outlining.' Late (LDS) die state of VAM 6. This co...

My other recent pick. Been looking for one of these for quite a while. They don't command much of a premium, but I think are very tuff and deserve the WOW! designation.

Long story short - raw unattributed. Paid standard lower grade MS $.

Been in a dry spell but got this one recently. Pretty happy with it. Has a bit more luster than pics show. Strong strike doubling in the date. A bit baggy, but not cleaned.

I was never able to assign a VAM to this 1897 S. The obverse matches the new VAM 19 nicely. Ear, Hair D, and Eye gouges; date position, etc. I think it has the inverted S, but no gouges in Bow or Wreath as in 19 or 20.

Is this an inverted S, and some variety of VAM 19?

Thanks all very much. As a hobbyist/enthusiast I greatly appreciate the time and responsiveness of the experts here, more than I can express.

Fair enough - thanks. I'm wondering if it would be returned as not gradable, or if it would get "xx Details - Rim damaged". Unsure how that works. Other than the rim damage, it looks nice in hand despite bagmarks, and I've been looking for one for a while the clearly has the "n". For an MS graded co...

This is a nicer 1880 VAM 32a Clashed In, other than a nasty obverse rim ding at 7 o'clock. It's full of bag marks but has original detail, and otherwise appears at least AU. My question is how the apparent defect would impact grading? Would it get graded with some description of defect, not graded, ...

I think you've got it. You picked up the more unique attributes. Should also verify the displaced crack over MER on the reverse, but I suspect it's there. The other doubling you refer to is strike doubling. Read the sticky note on doubling by messydesk at the top of the discussion page. Its informat...

I've bought some coins from this seller prior to him changing approach. Back then it was very hit and miss due to fuzzy pictures, but I got a few tuff varieties. He then started photo shopping and filtering, combined with heavily cleaning or buffing. Apparently his sales went up as a result and he c...