VAMWorld 2.0

Let's try that image of the patent drawing again

Here's a couple of images for the press we're discussing. Page 1 of Smith's patent, and a bank of these presses at work in a Chinese mint in the early 20th century. The inverted arrangement was particularly effective for striking coins with center holes, like the struck 'cash' issues

I'll say it was different. The toggle joint is under the dies, making the lower die the hammer. This design was not used for Morgan Dollars.

Maybe you need to look at the OC Smith 1896 press again. There's a fundamental detail that should jump out at you

They had numbers stamped into their sides. The reverse die also had 3 small flat areas near its base to accommodate set screws. The obverse die not.

A couple of years ago I got to examine Ash's mated pair of 84-CC dies. The reverse die had a longer neck than the obverse, to clear the collar at ejection. It was clearly the lower die. Seeing Barber specifically mention coin damage at ejection as a reason behind their preferred orientation makes pe...

I have seen and attributed actual VAM 6B's. They are not common but also not particularly impressive. This later stage with no letter transfer remaining is one of the most common Morgans there is by contrast.

It's already been confirmed that they share the same obverse. The listings have been revised.

It's a coin almost exactly like this that led to that first clashed mintmark discovery. That line thru the mintmark is from the top edge of the wheat leaf. Flip it over and there's a partial O just above the leaf. Those other marks are from the bottom of the wreath. The overlays from the Attribution...

sounds like you need @messydesk

Go to the home page and sign in. If you don't have a sign in, you have to create one. It talks about this in the first paragraph on the home page.

Seriously, you just have to create a user name and sign in for the site. It's separate from this forum. It might need admin approval, but it's a formality unless you've been booted, which I can't imagine for you.

I can understand the frustration in the original post, but the work that's been done is well intentioned even if it's not always accurate. A few pictures of the questioned stage would probably clear this one up. No fighting required.

It's a wiki site. And it has a history tab. You could fix this yourself and you could find out who you've targeted for your opinion.

There's a right way to critique the work of a VOLUNTEER, and this ain't it by any stretch of the imagination.

No need to poke it with a stick then!

Looks like a piece of glue. Have you tried poking it with a stick?

To be clear, I'm referring to the apparent break on the star.

It's not as bad in hand and I've got some practice with conservation on copper and bronze

I don't have an exact count off the top of my head but it's something like 20 different examples, and maybe more

This just showed up today, adding to my collection of medals by Morgan. This was first struck in 1872 and was an award from the School of Military Engineering. This example of BHM 2940 was awarded in 1900 according to its edge inscription.

I'd take a long look at the VAM 15 markers here on our page. I'll add that the bottom of the mintmark on your example has been hit.