1900 O/CC

General discussion board about VAMs, but no buy/sell offers
User avatar
alefzero
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:33 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: 1900 O/CC

Post by alefzero » Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:30 am

It is, without a doubt a 21D1 or 21D2, depending on the extent of the reverse break at STATES. Here are a couple slab shots of mine for comparison. You simply cannot have identical date and mint mark positions and obverse and reverse cracks and be a different die pair.
1246-os1.jpg
1246-os1.jpg (124.46 KiB) Viewed 280 times
1246-rs1.jpg
1246-rs1.jpg (128.12 KiB) Viewed 280 times

User avatar
LorenAlbert
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 11:19 am
Contact:

Re: 1900 O/CC

Post by LorenAlbert » Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:02 am

From the 1900-O Variety listing page
- 1900-O VAM-21D1 Near Date, High O, Die Break ATE & ER
- 1900-O VAM-21D2 Near Date, High O, Die Break ATE with chips New 2018
- 1900-O VAM-21E Near Date, High O, Denticle Impressions on Reverse

Each of the three sub-varieties are minted from the same die pair.
Order of discovery
- 21D2 - James Arnold July 2008
- 21E - Discovery 2009
- 21D1 - Discovered January 2018 by: Rod Meader & Ronald Gapa

Order of minting (stages? States? Progression?)
- 21E
- 21D1?
- 21D2?

Is everything copacetic with this listing? The List of Past VAM Assignments does not include a 21D. Was 21D2 previously 21D? Is the "New 2018" shown on the list page suppose to be for the 21D1 instead of 21D2? Is 21E the equivalent of 21D3? Have the listing and page titles for the 21D2 and 21D1 been transposed? For this listing, what was the basis for assigning D1 and D2; the progression, the order of discovery, or something else? To me, on the surface, something appears to be amiss. I am out of time to study it further.

LVA Letter for 21D1
LVA's description is a bit ambiguous. The 21D1 is said to be pre-21D2. The main subheading description for 21D1 includes the break at ER. The later minting, the 21D2 does not include the break at ER in the description. LVA appears to say that the 21D1 does not have a listed break at ER. 21D2 had a listable break, but was not listed. Are the descriptions for the D1 and D2 transposed. LVA included "die breaks at ATE & ER" in the subheading for the 21D1. Is his discovery letter consistent with including a break at ER for the 21D1? If so, then he missed listing break "ER" for the 21D2 in 2008 and did not revise the 21D2 description when 21D2 was assigned in 2018?
Last edited by LorenAlbert on Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:40 pm, edited 8 times in total.

User avatar
vampicker
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:48 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: 1900 O/CC

Post by vampicker » Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:32 pm

.
You simply cannot have identical date and mint mark positions and obverse and reverse cracks and be a different die pair.
unless we've walked into duplicate listings. This is a date that could have several such listings until a complete study is nearly finished. I agree with John C's attribution of a stage of VAM 21D, but I've got to wonder. @Bigbub ?
often the crusher of hopes and dreams

User avatar
alefzero
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:33 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: 1900 O/CC

Post by alefzero » Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:37 pm

Yeah, the VAM-34 looks to be a duplicate, at least based on the page images here.

User avatar
Bigbub
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 11:02 pm

Re: 1900 O/CC

Post by Bigbub » Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:55 pm

The VAM-21 series has a lot of action in it. It has clashes, denticle impressions. die cracking, gouges, multiple die pairings, wrong photographs posted and other mis-attributions. The date positions and mintmark positions move liberally among the series letter designations. Tracking the die cracks is the best way to sort this out, but there are lots of EDS VAM-21s with no cracking. The worst mis-attributions I have found is between the VAM40 series and the VAM-21 series. VAM 40A and VAM-21B are duplicate listings and I have examples of both coins that show this.

But we have drifted off topic from the original post. It is a valid observation that all O/CC coins do not and cannot have a high 'O' placement. Think about it. The 'CC' was placed in the die first. To obscure it, the 'O' had to go over it which makes its placement lower.

RogerB
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:30 pm

Re: 1900 O/CC

Post by RogerB » Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:07 pm

RE: "The 'CC' was placed in the die first. To obscure it, the 'O' had to go over it which makes its placement lower."

Weeeell --- not really.

The first step was for the Engraving Department to fill the old CC mintmark, and smooth the surface so that a new mintmark could be punched. The diesinker would not have known the precise position of the of CC because it was not visible on the repaired die. The "O" punch would have been positioned using the alignment tool and entered normally. For the dieskinker there was never an old mintmark to see.

The over-mintmark is visible only because parts of the repair did not hold up under hardening, tempering and coinage stress. That is why we see only remnants of the "CC" rather than deep, complete parts of letters.

See From Mint to Mint for details.
Last edited by RogerB on Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mhomei
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 7:23 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: 1900 O/CC

Post by Mhomei » Sun Aug 09, 2020 7:36 pm

I agree v34

User avatar
alefzero
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:33 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: 1900 O/CC

Post by alefzero » Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:02 am

I agree that VAM-34 should go away as a duplicate listing. Well, something should go away and consolidate. The 21D/E can stay for legacy reasons and incorporate the ear doubling. Or rhw 21D/E can move out the 21 to 34 substates based on the date being more than just near. But we have plenty of underlisted low and slanted dates.

Post Reply