1883-S confirmed as VAM 6

[DHalladay]

Seriously, how does anyone attribute any 1883-S?

I just got one for some reason that doesn't make as much sense now as it did at the time and when I looked at the list of attribution pages – and looked at the few photos inside – I thought, "You've got to be kidding." So I took some photos and now I'm really confused:


My coin looks to have the massively doubled right side of the 1 in the date, which is supposed to make it VAM 6:

18173802 date.jpg (161.44 KiB) Viewed 2153 times

Except it also has die polishing behind the eagle's neck, which is supposed to make it VAM 13:

18173802 neck.jpg (220.84 KiB) Viewed 2153 times

Any suggestions? It's too early to start drinking.

[raynat3]

Dennis,

My take on this is that LVA discovered the VAM 6 in 1980 and was not listing/commenting the wing-neck gap for markers at the time unless major gouges, so dont know what it had.

The example of the VAM 13 discovered in 2016, appears from the plate photos high enough quality to be able to see the doubled 1 on obverse, however nothing is listed for obverse.

Maybe a new die pair? The 2016 discovery might still be around do ask the owner to check for doubled 1.

[DHalladay]

Great comments raynat. Thank you.
Probably best to put it in my next batch to LVA and get some clarification.

[DHalladay]

One more photo... chips in In and G:

18173802 InG.jpg (141.64 KiB) Viewed 2132 times

[raynat3]

One more thing is that I looked in encyclopedia and the VAM 6 shows the full date and you can clearly see what is currently being called doubling on inside of lower loop on 3. It looks similar to that of the Fogie discovery 1883-O VAM 63A which I have included a picture of the three. Appears like a small chip.

RES_1883_O_VAM_63A_3.jpg (51.23 KiB) Viewed 2130 times

I do not see that in your coin picture.

This "doubling" I have been studying for a while across all 83-Series and shows up in all series.

[crabscrape]

Dennis,

It looks like both 8's are doubled in the lower loops.

[DHalladay]

Here are bigger versions of the date photo that show just two digits at a time. It looks like there is a chip in the lower loop of the 3:

18173802 date 18.jpg (240.28 KiB) Viewed 2118 times

18173802 date 83.jpg (231.01 KiB) Viewed 2116 times

[crabscrape]

Dennis,
Is there any polishing lines at bottom edge of Phrygian cap?

[DHalladay]

In the field just to the right, just above the hair?
Yes, but pretty minor.

[crabscrape]

Dennis have you compared vam 11 to your coin?

[DHalladay]

Dennis have you compared vam 11 to your coin?

Just did, thanks.
But it doesn't have the 2 parallel vertical lines at the base of the cap where it meets the hair.

[Mhomei]

got MM?

[DHalladay]

got MM?

Hot off the copy stand for you Mitch:

18173802 mint mark.jpg (227.29 KiB) Viewed 2071 times

[Mhomei]

Put me in the V6 camp

The MM could be considered set slightly left, but within toletances certainly not a S/S

[Mhomei]

LVA plated the MM on 13 and yours is in a different position.

[Mhomei]

Also check out the encyclopedia, the full date is plated ND the slag line by the 1 is an exact match
Great photos Dennis. If you can get anybody with the first name of John to sign off on it your pics would be a great addition to the page

[DHalladay]

Thanks Mitch!

I'll PM the John twins and see if one of them will go along with VAM 6.

[messydesk]

Leaning towards VAM 6.

[vampicker]

I'll parrot the VAM 6 attribution. If you look at the present example and the VAM 6 plate in the VAM book, note the die wear lines in the spaces between the bottoms of the digits - it's a match. It doesn't hurt that the doubling on the 1 is spot on and no other listing comes close. As for the reverse, the mintmark is in a different position that the VAM 13. The lines behind the neck are similar, but there are slight differences. Likely the work of the same hand deal. If anything, the mintmark on the present coin could be called slightly low.

[DHalladay]

Would someone put an assortment of the PUP photos in this thread on the VAM 6 page?