VAMWorld 2.0

Hi gang,

So, I've been poking at the few 1921P examples I have that I haven't attributed. I've gotten all motivated as I was able to attribute one (it turned out to be a VAM 3HK) so I thought I would give the others another crack.

The one D1 that has been a mystery turned out to match all the salient features of the VAM 20A, like all of the little scratches around the wreath, except for one thing - it didn't have any pitting by the LL. The VAM 20A page says "A similar marriage, but not the exact dies of VAM 20," and it's true that the photos on the VAM 20 page don't show the same wreath scratches.

So I guess my questions are - is this news that there is an EDS of the 1921P VAM 20A without the pitting? Do I just call it a VAM 20 and that's that? Since there is already a different extant VAM 20, I'm not sure what makes the most sense from a documentation and nomenclature standpoint.

Thanks for any advice you might care to share!

Tom/weth

The VAM numbering of 20 and 20A haven't made any sense to me since I acquired an example of both several years ago... and I guess now I can say "it makes no sense to me either."

I don't see how 20 and 20A can possibly be related. The reverses look to me to be entirely different, and I'm not 100% convinced that the obverses are the same.

I'd love to hear from J.R. and J.B. on this.


The following 8 photo pairs were taken using the same two coins – a VSS-attributed 1921-P VAM 20, and a coin I self-attributed as VAM 20A by virtue of the diagnostic (though late die state-ish) pitting around LL in DOLLAR.

photo pair #1 (LL pitting). VAM 20 (top) has no pitting, while VAM 20A (bottom) does.

photo pair #2 (scribbles). The scribbles on VAM 20 (top) and VAM 20A (bottom) have simply no resemblance whatsoever.

photo pair #3 (cotton bolls). Both coins have gouges/lines that the other does not. VAM 20 (left) has prominent PUPs between the bolls, while VAM 20A (right) has a few short parallel lines above the left cotton leaf, and a few small gouges/lines through the right boll stem.

photo pair #4 (cap fold). VAM 20 (left) has a noticeable diagonal inside the large cap fold recess, while VAM 20A (right) does not. On the other hand, VAM 20A has several diagonal lines on the lower right side of the right cotton boll that VAM 20 does not have.

photo pair #5 (lines in nostril). Both coins have lines inside Liberty’s nostril, but in slightly different places, and the biggest one on VAM 20 (top) is much bolder than anything on VAM 20A (bottom).


photo pair #6 (bow). Each coin has lines in and around the bow that the other coin does not. The most prominent one of all is indicated by the arrow on VAM 20 (top).


photo pair #7 (right wreath). Each coin has lines in upper part of the right wreath, but those on VAM 20 (left) are extremely small. VAM 20A, however, has a bold gouge/line indicated by the arrow.


photo pair #8 (left wreath). Two bold lines on VAM 20A (bottom) are dramatically bigger and bolder than anything on VAM 20 (top). Also seen on VAM 20A is a fragment of one of its many reverse die cracks.

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for posting the wonderful photos! To be clear, I don't have what you call a VAM 20 (top photos) but I have two coins that match your VAM 20A (bottom photos), one of which has pitting and one is EDS without any pitting or die breaks. On the EDS example, there is a faint polishing line connecting the second L to the wreath, which you can still see a faint remnant of on the pitted LDS version.

So I dug the original VAM 20 discovery piece out this afternoon and it doesn't match either marriage illustrated in this thread. Just to pile on, neither of the Van Allen plates on the VAM 20 page are shot from the discovery piece either. If you look in the updates, the 2001 plate is of the original example. I had sent all of my 1921 dated discovery pieces back to Leroy when he was working on the scribbles guide, but since VAM 20 doesn't actually have scribbles, he didn't shoot more pictures.
There's a distinctive pattern of die cracks on my example and I found a match. VAM 89 is a duplicate listing of the original VAM 20

obverse of the VAM 20 discovery piece

and its reverse

vampicker wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:36 pm

So I dug the original VAM 20 discovery piece out this afternoon and it doesn't match either marriage illustrated in this thread. Just to pile on, neither of the Van Allen plates on the VAM 20 page are shot from the discovery piece either. If you look in the updates, the 2001 plate is of the original example. I had sent all of my 1921 dated discovery pieces back to Leroy when he was working on the scribbles guide, but since VAM 20 doesn't actually have scribbles, he didn't shoot more pictures.
There's a distinctive pattern of die cracks on my example and I found a match. VAM 89 is a duplicate listing of the original VAM 20

John:

Where does that leave the current VAM 20 listing?

VAM 20 predates VAM 89 by 8 years for the same doubling. I'd think the VAM 20 would stand and the 89 would get killed off.

I suppose it's worth noting that the doubling that got me to send this in back in 2001 is found on multiple dies with virtually identical spread. If I saw this for the first time now, I'd probably pass on trying to get it listed

So 1921P VAM20 can/has been described of:

1) vampicker's discovery coin, which does appear to be a duplicate of VAM 89
2) DHalladay's VSS attributed coin
3) my unpitted VAM 20A example

All three of which are clearly differentiable die pairs.

Great. Glad I could clear all that up.

It's exactly the sort of coin that made scribbles listings seem rational

If you look at the text description of VAM 20, it clears up why there are differences among the three coins mentioned above. Trifling die markers aren't part of the VAM 20 description any more than they are for VAM 3. It's therefore no surprise that that VAM 20A is a different die pair that happens to have the same kind of doubling as described for VAM 20. Likewise for the other VAM 20.

Just to add more to this discussion, I have a VSS-attributed VAM 89 with great reverse cracks. Here are photos, plus a shot of the scribbles. It is abundantly clear to me that 89, 20A and 20 are all different VAMs.

Hi gang,

Well, just got what is likely my final package back from LVA. Resolved one minor 1921P issue, in that LVA formally killed VAM 1BP as it is now VAM 1BN2. Got totally shot down on another; I sent in a VSS attributed 1921P VAM 50 that I didn't think matched the plate photo but LVA thought it matched the plate photo exactly. His emphasis.

Anyway, the real point was regarding the status of VAM 20A, and what should an early die state without pitting be called. Seems like I've reinvented VAM 20, brought it back from the dead...