Page 2 of 2

Re: 1890-O MS62 Are theses feeder finger marks?

Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:35 pm
by pete$298
ljs123 wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:22 pm
pete$298 wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:25 am

Thank you again for the help and the picture comparison. In the future I will look more closely at the location of the clashes,etc. I have a lot to learn and everyone's help is greatly appreciated.


I'm happy to help.
If you really want to practice what you said "In the future I will look more closely at the location of the clashes,etc", this post is your perfect opportunity. I showed you two small differences on the obverse (s clash and date) that made a difference in the attribution. You now know the correct attribution of the photos in this thread. Can you point out two small differences in the reverses? I'm thinking of two that stand out to me, maybe they will be the two you notice.
You don't have to answer if you don't want to. But I do think it would be a helpful exercise.
Best of luck,

While further studying the 1B and 28A it seems to me that the mint mark in the 28A is slightly higher and slightly to the left of the MM in the 1B. The second thing I see is the fill in the top of the G in God in the 1B. Would these be the differences that you see?

Re: 1890-O MS62 Are theses feeder finger marks?

Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 pm
by pete$298
alefzero wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:47 am
A point worth making is that there were a few years between the 1B and 28A discoveries. For those looking for a 28A or 28B, it would be worthwhile to look at those attributed as 1B, even among your own coins. The MPD is an easy thing to miss when considering the clashing primarily. I know that I found quite a few older attributions among my own that had to change upon revisiting years later. Some were later listed die states, of course, but there are ones like this one on rare occasion.

I have a couple more 1890-Os that I need to check and I will start searching for a 28A or 28B because of the interest you guys have created.


Re: 1890-O MS62 Are theses feeder finger marks?

Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:32 pm
by ljs123
My challenge to you has no right or wrong answers. Everyone sees things differently. I was just interested in you closely comparing and contrasting two known different VAMs.

One of your observations was the same as mine. The mm are in different locations. They are not different by much, but they are different. Date location and mm location are a major factor in attribution. Very good!

My second point was an attempt for you to see very small differences in clashes. I showed you that the s clash on the obverse was different in the hair vee. Any time I notice something like that on one side of a coin, I expect to see that difference also on the other side of the coin. Take a look at the clash line location on the s in trust. The clash lines are in different locations on the s. The line on the reverse hits the s lower on the 1B. Not by much, but small differences make a difference in attribution.
I will probably get the quote wrong, but the idea comes across. When I was pretty new to VAMs, one expert around here once said something like; Your coin looks similar to VAM-XYZ. By that I mean it's different." In other words, it doesn't matter if it is a small difference, or a big difference. Different is different.

Now go attribute another one. :D

1890_o_vam1bttmhirev-crop-ljs-071220.jpg (183.43 KiB) Viewed 197 times
ljs-90o-VAM-28A-Lrev#2-ljs-071220.jpg (351.88 KiB) Viewed 197 times