Back from Leroy 4 NEW 1878 Varieties W/ 2 new 8 TF

[vampicker]

Please tell me that hammered dogsh*t of a reverse isn't the coin in question.

[vamsterdam]

He and I both shot down the “v82a “ on the spot. Pmd, no question. No, we couldn’t say how but I get asked all the time,” can you tell me how my coin got damaged?”
As for the vam 14,a,b, that is disappointing. I tried to get Leroy to split up the 1878s v46 into 3, or at least two. One, no trace of cracking-v46, the outline of the break as is currently listed as v46a, and the full blob die break, and he refused. He did it for 1922 v5a. But the 1878s v42a is cool, denticle clash.

[VamHelsing]

[LateDateMorganGuy]

I knew when I read this post this AM with only 4 looks, that it would erupt into chaos with a lot of chagrin once more saw it. The Wild Wild West of VAMming continues, and the head wrangler seems oblivious

[vampicker]

I'll repeat myself here, Russ is sending me the coin for further examination.

[CascadeChris]

As the guy that has probably spent the most time with this coin aside Russ & Leroy (which doesn't say much, but still) it boggles my mind why Leroy would seemingly go rogue and call it a retained CUD. Then again, if it is, it's a little above my numismatic pay grade to identify as such I suppose. Curious how this will all play out. Dan Carr's explanation made sense to me but what do I know..

[LateDateMorganGuy]

In the previous thread about the supposed V82A, there are a number of issues that suggest the coin was messed with, and the supposed Cud is post mint.

The two LFCPs that Russ previously posted tell the tale.

What I find interesting is that the reverse looks like it was subjected to heat in the subject area, and has polishing lines in that area. Also note the raise metal specks in the field just below the subject area on the obverse, most predominantly between S-U. But you can see them in the obverse LFCP as black "specks".

[TheYokel]

It's not just heat damage, although it could have been heated up to soften the metal to allow the shift. Could have also just been to hide the work done. Let crazy walk you through how this happened in my mind...

So if you look at the rough overlay and the way the affected area lines up on the reverse..

I'm suspecting a savvy entrepreneur that understood how obverse and reverses line up caused it.

Hear me out...

If you line up the overlay, the guy knew that the legend on the reverse lines up differently than the obverse and chose a spot that they could affect on the reverse without disturbing any lettering but that would cause a deformity on the obverse lettering.

Line up the affected obverse and if done correctly it can be achieved on the right coin/die alignment by depressing directly below the LLAR on the reverse in the field but not touching the letters.

Notice the die is sloped/concave in the affected area on the reverse. Our entrepreneur buffed down the reverse field to hide the depression while still showing a raised obverse.

Stick a few layers of cloth on the front of the coin in a vice/press to protect the surface while still allowing enough give in the cloth to let the coin deform. Stick a layer of cloth on the reverse and line a piece of metal up directly below those letters on the reverse and give a good squeeze. Then polish down the depression line on the reverse to blend in with the surrounding field. There are straight pmd lines in the exact spot that corresponds on the denticles still present on the reverse...

Let the dies speak...

[weth]

I remain doubly amazed by the 78P VAM 82A. First, that LVA thought the features were in the die and not PMD. Secondly, that he would call such a thing a "cud". There are no features lost, so it would be some form of displaced field if it were in the die, not a cud. But it's pretty clearly post-mint damage.

[TheYokel]

I remain doubly amazed by the 78P VAM 82A. First, that LVA thought the features were in the die and not PMD. Secondly, that he would call such a thing a "cud". There are no features lost, so it would be some form of displaced field if it were in the die, not a cud. But it's pretty clearly post-mint damage.

Also the fact that a retained cud (the only way the letters/field wouldn't be completely missing after the piece broke off the die)...

...are almost universally *Not* seen on the hammer die. Gravity makes the pieces fall out...

[vampicker]

I sent the piece back to Leroy with my observations about it and got it back today. My opinion hasn't changed and neither has his. The listing stands, but I won't certify it. I've attached our respective letters about this piece. I'd again like to thank Russ for sending it to me for examination even if I don't agree with the outcome

[PacificWR]

Do you need help setting up the new page for the 1894-S VAM-11?

[vamsterdam]

This is disappointing. Leroy does not know what a cud is. And he cannot see a deliberately damaged coin in hand. Let Jon Sullivan and Fred Weinberg see it. Even though I have dealt in errors since 1988, my opinion seems to carry no weight. If I had taken the job at Pcgs, I would slab it either. I know Ngc, Pcgs and Icg won’t either.

[vampicker]

Sure, if you put up the basic framework I can add details later. Thanks Wayne

[vamnuke]

Thanks for the update!!! Unfortunately, a hole that I expect too remain unfilled.

[messydesk]

Thanks for the update!!! Unfortunately, a hole that I expect too remain unfilled.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, there's no hole there, and the SSDC registry scoring department would agree.

[PacificWR]

1894-S VAM-11 page is setup and ready to go.

[Unc90o]

Nice work for the 33a, or 33 now

[vampicker]

Thanks Wayne, I'll put some pics up tomorrow. This new VAM will also fill a slot in the 2019 JR list as the same obverse as VAM 9.

Working on an 'Errorscope' article for the 83-O VAM 33 (now) and the 'hubbed thru debris' angle

[vamnuke]

Thanks for the update!!! Unfortunately, a hole that I expect too remain unfilled.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, there's no hole there, and the SSDC registry scoring department would agree.