VAMWorld 2.0

bhinkle wrote: ↑

Sun May 28, 2023 8:46 pm

I tried to see that perfect oval blob, with just my loupe, but I didn't see it.

That blob on my coin is crud/debris/junk that shouldn't be there, so It's good that your coin doesn't have it -- and I wish mine didn't.

I agree with 62

Yes, my coin has the "stuff" in front of the neck (along with an unfortunate blob of crud): neck.jpg And it has the dot inside the top loop of the 1st 8: dot in 8.jpg Here's a shot of the flakey eye with the light coming from a different direction, which really accentuates the yellow/orange toning h...

You can basically ignore the necklace dashes as being of any help pointing to a specific VAM. They are extremely common on 1921-P D1 reverse VAMs – much more of an odd curiosity from the die-making process, rather than anything close to being a helpful pickup point to help make an attribution. What ...

Congratulations on finally acquiring that prize. It looks very nice for a details coin.

vampicker wrote: ↑

Fri May 26, 2023 7:38 pm

Still say that should have been named 'stink eye'

"Flaming Devil Eye" has always been my preference.

As usual, the coin's desirability and how much one is willing to pay varies. It is a wickedly clashed, rotated coin. But it is under rated. If it had made the WOW list. it might have more fans. That being said, I have had 12 coins cross my hands, all cherry-picked. They are findable if one has pati...

Earlier this month on eBay I placed a very modest bid on an NGC MS62 1881-O VAM 1D "Flakey Eye" that was identified by the seller, but not attributed on the holder, so I could see what the winning bid wound up being. Surprise! -- it turned out to be my bid.

I believe you can now consider yourself as the discoverer of VAM 120A.

I agree!
Sorry @fogie, but Roger got the 120A first.

Personally -- and this is just my opinion -- I find the $430 price wildly absurd, which makes the $2300 price wildly absurd X5. Yes it's a Kimpton 12 coin, but it's not on any of the major and more actively pursued VAM "lists", which means it is a tiny niche coin that has a tiny following. I'm a lon...

Or is it that they are so common it is a bam 1? IMO, the doubling is how all of the D1 dies were made, so it doesn't point to a specific VAM. Figuring out which one you have is something you still need to do. Start looking for scribbles and die cracks -- after checking to see if it's an infrequent ...

I'm going to guess that your 1921-P has a D1 reverse?
Doubling on the T especially seems to be how the D1 reverse die was made, because I've seen it on hundreds of different coins.

I believe that putting a date in a thread's title will increase readership and participation.

Thank you Roger.

chgolaw1 wrote: ↑

Sun May 21, 2023 7:59 pm

Thanks for the help. I just can't figure out why there is such a big gap in prices for 2 coins that are in 63 and attributed.

What are the prices you are referring to?

Wow!
Amazing workmanship on that... and a Donkey Tail to boot!

Yes, a couple of times, but they were self-inflicted. Back in the early days of 'picking in Heritage auctions, I thought I was was right about my attributions. But they turned out to be mirages caused by lighting. That's when I really took my tag line seen below to heart.

impairedsquirrel wrote: ↑

Thu May 18, 2023 4:44 pm

Just wanted to make sure you know that they made Morgans in a whole bunch of different years Dennis…
Nice group!

Yes, there are indeed other dates.
Before 1921-Ps and Ds, my fetish was 1895-S. I topped out at 52 (all PCGS), but now I'm down to just 21.

SilverToken wrote: ↑

Thu May 18, 2023 12:05 pm

Great Fill, but I am curious why it wasn't VAM'd as well...

There isn't a trace of scribbles with which to make an I.D. But calling it a VAM 3 probably seemed irrelevant in the context of the massive letter filling. I know that's how I look at it.

Those are interesting!
Good luck with the auctions.