Not at all. I completely agree. That's why I avoid commenting on others coins. Last few times they got... Rather upset... When i pointed out they were duplicates.LateDateMorganGuy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:34 pmI think JR hit the nail on the head. I only used average number of coins per die as an example. I think the 1900-S die useage table showed a few dies close to 500K per die?
But my point is that "new" VAMs get listed when many, many times they are just different die stages or states of previously listed marriages. These become the red-haired step-children listings.
The only way to avoid this is to do die studies, not "VAM discoveries". But I know I am pissing in the wind on this.
We just need more photos of more coins. Blind submissions with no follow up for other eyes to check the pictures doesn't help.
I'm sure there's lots of die marriages and progressions we could kill off with full coin photos