VAMWorld 2.0

Well I just got the grade back on this one MS-65

Ray, based on the comments it looks like, not listing a VAM is based upon the knowledge of many collectors and the information found or determined for die studies. In the 8 TF and the information on the 1878 V-86 its a matter of record. If a coins die pair is clashed and a second die pair is then st...

Allen, The 1889 CC VAM 4a doesn't exist. In my post above is the only way Leroy will de list the coin. 4 years ago an MS-62 coin was at a Heritage sale I printed images and all and held the coin in-hand. The coin hammered for over 20K. I sent the information to Leroy as well as the reason I didn't b...

nread post by LateDateMorganGuy » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:25 pm I am not sure what the answer is here. This could be a slippery slope so to speak. While I can understand this statement, I personally have a discovery coin that was a 2 for one discovery that shouldn't be. One of the coins will never be f...

If its the one that was on E Bay, I got home late and the sale had ended!

Well I bought this one about 8 days ago, and I received it on Thursdays, and its now on its way to PCGS for my pedigree.

1889 O VAM-1a1 PCGS MS-63

No E Clash Rob....!! BTW remember the 1891 O Be an AU 55 ….be an AU 55? I sold the that coin and it was upgraded to an MS-60 at PCGS by the new owner.

Also we missed you at FUN as well as Brad B

I think they where sent to me at like 3000 x 3000

Well here is the colorful Morgan I picked up at the FUN Show, and it was not a pick as I paid for this one!! John B tolk the photos. Thanks JB PS the coin looks much better in hand LOL as it has a really nice glow.

I have an 1878 PCGS currently graded MS-65 PL VAM-132, this grade is now one of only 2 in this top pop grade.

PM me for photos and pricing

Dennis that is not strike doubling its a triple die, and its Way Cool!!

I just cant make it out on my AU coins. I personally don't remember this ever being a PUP, and I never really looked at all the strong polishing lines in the reverse fields

Below are some photos of my 14.8 , and it has a few things that are not on my non PL coin and I don't remember this stuff on the Proof I sold to Ash. This coin has a light gouge or polishing burn line running thought the "O" of "OF" and it has rather deep polishing lines everywhere in the fields on ...

I was looking thought some of me discovery coins today, after someone asked a question about 1. I noticed the 1881 O V-18a is not present. I have the ANACS discovery coin labeled as the VAM-18a that has PL reverse fields and is coin in the plate photo on the VAM 18 page. I also noticed the 1921 S VA...

Here are photos of this coin without lighting that PCGS uses in imaging. This coin in hand is not un-attractive or lacking luster.

flash photos

Well here is one I had hoped would garner the extremely rare PCGS grade of AU Proof Like, but nope it AU QC. and this thing is no question an AU Proof like. But its also a true VAM 53 Check Mark, no clashing and the SSDC registry has an MS-65 but the images of that one makes it a more common 53a,

I understand, but I sill have an issue with the fact I own other toned PCGS graded coins that look just like the 1st one. Its the inconsistency in standards on color as well as PL and DMPL that drives me up a wall. I sold a toned 1888 O to Ash a few years back, I had to send it in 3 times, and it wa...

The dealer that I bought this one from pulled it out of a Wittman dollar type date book of 1878 - 1890. I don't know how long the person that sold this to him had been collecting, but I am to understand his son was the seller. Even in JB bulk group it was kind of funky, here is a photo of one I sent...

here are 2 other photos of this eds of the V-16 check mark