SSDC 8TF registry question

General discussion board about VAMs, but no buy/sell offers
vamnuke
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:57 pm

SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by vamnuke » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:43 am

I see V22 plain has been purged from the VAMWORLD pages, as NONE are non-clashed. Yay! So, when will the SSDC registry delete the coin from the ranks? As a side note, V86A should be rolled into V86 with the top in pop V86A being the top dog among the very few registered coins. It also does not make sense as to the point value disparity between 86 & 86A. The coin is a very rare bird in any grade; ALL are clashed (hence NO V22 plain); it's no different than V39A (7/8 coin with all clashed) so I say strike V22 plain & V86A from registry. [on a side note, I wouldn't have to fill two non fillable holes in my 78-P set. :-) ]

fogie
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 9:45 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by fogie » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:16 am

Hear here.....I like the way u think....

vamnuke
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by vamnuke » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:18 am

Thanks, Brent!

fogie
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 9:45 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by fogie » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:21 am

What we really need is for everyone that has a coin in the 1878 VAM 22 slot to move it to the proper slot (ABC...).

78-sLongnock
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:07 pm

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by 78-sLongnock » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:24 am

Thanks Vamnuke,
Here, Here .....
78 7 TF Vam 86 & Vam 86A are the same Vam.
I have one! It’s clashed like all the rest of them.

crabscrape
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 10:38 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by crabscrape » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:55 am

Clayton,
Who moved it from the Vamworld pages??

User avatar
LateDateMorganGuy
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:11 am

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by LateDateMorganGuy » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:25 am

I am not sure what the answer is here. This could be a slippery slope so to speak.

If Leroy has not officially delisted a certain VAM, does it belong in the Registry or not? The precedent was set when the 89-CC VAM-4A was removed from the Clashed E set, much to my chagrin. If you can tell I did not agree with that move. But it gave a collector a "yellow" banner on his set.

If we do it for certain VAMs, do I have permission to go into the 02-O, 04-O and 04-P sets and do the same, i.e., remove the VAMs that do not exist? If so, I would have three "yellow" banners on those three sets. But I have not approached this idea because:

1. Folks have coins listed in the non-existent VAM slots. What do we do with those? Really only the owners should move them to the correct slot. But what slot do they move them too? For example, in the 1902-O series, there are 11 examples in the VAM-2 slot. Those 11 examples could be really several different VAM listings. Who is going to decide?
2. How many VDE (VAMs Don't Exist), and who will decide what gets removed from the Registry and what won't? What criteria?
3. In my mind, this should be consistent across the board. Either remove VAMs that the community believes doesn't exist, or leave them there until Leroy delists them. Can I add the 89-CC VAM-4A back into the Registry Clashed E Set?

I expect differing opinions.

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by messydesk » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:46 am

There's a difference between what people believe doesn't exist and what cannot exist. We know from studying the coins that VAM 22 without a clash cannot exist, nor can VAM 86. Neither VAM 22A nor VAM 86A ever should have been listed. 89-CC VAM 4A can be debunked only with examination of the discovery coin. I thought I looked at one alleged 89-CC VAM 4A once, and it was a VAM 2something, but I don't think it was the discovery.

I wouldn't have a problem removing registry entries for coins that can be proven not to exist, but this should also be a point of follow-up with Leroy to get them out of the catalog.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

User avatar
alefzero
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:33 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by alefzero » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:29 am

Done. It has been purged.

User avatar
LateDateMorganGuy
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:11 am

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by LateDateMorganGuy » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:30 am

So, we add the VAM-4A back into the Clashed E set?

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by messydesk » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:48 am

LateDateMorganGuy wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:30 am
So, we add the VAM-4A back into the Clashed E set?
I was deliberately silent on what to do about suspected non-existent VAMs with respect to the registry. It is, as you say, a slippery slope to remove VAMs suspected not to exist without Leroy's imprimatur.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

User avatar
raynat3
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 1:44 am

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by raynat3 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:16 am

I am confused, if something can be proved, does Leroy not agree with the proof?

User avatar
alefzero
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:33 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by alefzero » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:27 am

This is a case where we are reasonably sure, regardless of the listing. Should a VAM-22, as listed, come up, it would get a lot of attention and would be added with great fanfare.

When the registry started, I made it a point to exclude such a coin from the beginning: the 1888 VAM-16. I had accumulated dozens of VAM-16A, including an undeniably VEDS virgin prooflike. There was no question that the obverse break was in the die when production commenced. I think the unbroken listing did go away, as I sold that coin to someone specifically to get that done. Not sure what to do to get the VAM-22 officially delisted though.

weth
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:44 pm

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by weth » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:11 pm

I think the best way to handle this is to revise listings through LVA. This is easier said than done, as it is hard to prove sometimes that a thing does not exist. But he can be persuaded, usually by being shown the right set of coins. I killed the 1885-O VAM 11A by providing a DMPL VAM 11 example that had the gouge, the message being "they all have the gouge". It took several tries with the 83-P VAM 18A but eventually he got there. Show him the right coins that tell the full story.

twohawks
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:13 pm

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by twohawks » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:12 pm

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 found. The PUP is a raised piece of metal by the rim, that is a "gas pocket" the coin is a clashed 1880 and the 2nd 2/1 is the un-clashed version of that coin that was made assuming that an un-clashed one exists. The bubble is not a die chip its a gas bubble in the planchet.

As far as the 1889 CC VAM-4a is concerned, I have sent Leroy 3 XF and 1 Low AU VAM 4-? a coins as well as Heritage images of what would be a VAM-4a if an E Clash existed in MS grades. His response was that if I found one at a Heritage sale and John Roberts examined it and found that the E Clash was not present he would de-list the VAM-4a. Since that letter 4 years ago I have found 3, and JR was not present at the given shows.

The 1889 CC VAM-4a doesn't exist, Julian L was the owner of the discovery coin and he has said more than once he never could see the E Clash. I also have owned 4 heavy clashed VAM-4 coins and "If I Twohawks" The guy that sees E Clashes everywhere, cant see one on XF and low AU coins in hand and on MS coins on Heritage sales as well, and has even giving up looking for one based on what I have personally seen, they don't exist.

twohawks
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:13 pm

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by twohawks » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:19 pm

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 buy it. I could not see spending a little over 30K with juice, to De-List a coin. Leroy would not use the Heritage photos, but stated that if an example came up for sale and John R viewed it and confirmed an E Clash is not Present he will De-List the VAM-4a.

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by messydesk » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:26 pm

alefzero wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:27 am
This is a case where we are reasonably sure, regardless of the listing. Should a VAM-22, as listed, come up, it would get a lot of attention and would be added with great fanfare.

When the registry started, I made it a point to exclude such a coin from the beginning: the 1888 VAM-16. I had accumulated dozens of VAM-16A, including an undeniably VEDS virgin prooflike. There was no question that the obverse break was in the die when production commenced. I think the unbroken listing did go away, as I sold that coin to someone specifically to get that done. Not sure what to do to get the VAM-22 officially delisted though.
It can be shown that the clash on the VAM 22A is from a 7TF reverse, just like it can be shown that the clash on the 42A (another that shouldn't have been listed) is from an 8TF reverse (VAM 17). That the next die stage listed, VAM 22B, also has the clash, proves there is either no need for the VAM 22A listing or the VAM 22 listing.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

User avatar
alefzero
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:33 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by alefzero » Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:00 pm

Yes. Someone, I guess, needs to assemble the necessary set of coins and send them as a group to him (when he is again ready for submissions) to get the listings resolved.

However, here we can simply put notes on the pages to the effect. At the registry, we really can't maintain spots for them. For the overwhelming part, it will be one-to-one to the listings. But why have a spot for something that nobody will have (except for say a VAM-215, because you never know who will join or win the lottery)? We have more than are listed too, like multiple spots for alternate die pairs and EDS, LDS. For some sets, only the EDS or LDS or certain Scarface stages are applicable. It is more oriented toward the collectibility and set maintenance. Things get admittedly awkward because of the listings here and there, but not very much.

User avatar
mark
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:55 am

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by mark » Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:14 pm

This makes me happy. Thanks for updating!

vamnuke
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: SSDC 8TF registry question

Post by vamnuke » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:07 am

I feel good about V86 / 86A & 22 plain. The clashing tells the story and the die progression is well studied; a similar thing happened with V39 / 39A several years back; all are now 39A. As for some others in the 78-P set, I feel strongly that a couple of "plain" numbers don't exist, absorbed into A,, B, C, etc. but cannot be proven. It's even harder when older slabbed stuff is attributed with a VAM, maybe before the A, B, C, etc. we're recognized. With the V22, I'm sure there will be many more holdered as a 22 without the suffix. For SSDC registry purposes, which we control, it will are up to the collector to determine the correct suffix. Good discussion!

Post Reply