1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

General discussion board about VAMs, but no buy/sell offers
vamnuke
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by vamnuke » Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:22 pm

So if the Fogie specimen of v85 is the Discovery coin, that should seal its fate .

The SEGS 62PL V91 is registered in the SSDC registry so not lost. Thanks to
Brian for reaching out to Larry. Maybe more info will be shed.

Not sure how v1 can be reconciled; similar v2 is already gone…

Progress is in the works.

78-sLongnock
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:07 pm

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by 78-sLongnock » Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:26 am

We are making progress ferreting out if the above needs to be moved to “may not exist category” or keep in the system, please add any additional info that will help determine the fate of the above 👆

tbconcrete
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 1:31 am

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by tbconcrete » Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:23 am

The V91 in MS62PL is my coin. In a Segs slab attributed by Briggs. It is the same exact die pair as V91A. No notable Die State change. I would guess the gouge in the cap was noticed after the fact. Is this the DC coin, as said to be lost in the mail??

On the VAM85, I have hunted for years for one.... I have what I believe to be a V85 on my desk.. If I can confirm the B2K Reverse at some point, I will post it up. Need to pull out a few V8s and confirm.

As far as speculating on VAM existence, I wrote the V10 off years ago. Then a few pop up......

But the V91 is a clear example, to me, of one die pair with details missed the first go around. Not uncommon for anyone who has VAMmed a coin and later had to reVAM it.

User avatar
lewisr2
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by lewisr2 » Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:53 am

Thank you for responding Tim.
Appears V91 should be removed>

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 3314
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by messydesk » Wed Jul 13, 2022 7:38 pm

If presented with evidence that the EDS obverse has the gouge in the cap, I'll be more likely to eliminate VAM 91A and keep 91.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

vamnuke
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by vamnuke » Wed Jul 13, 2022 10:49 pm

Sounds similar to 1878-P V170 /170A…

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 3314
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by messydesk » Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:35 am

vamnuke wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 10:49 pm
Sounds similar to 1878-P V170 /170A…
And countless others.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

User avatar
lewisr2
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by lewisr2 » Sat Jul 16, 2022 8:06 pm

messydesk said above -- “If presented with evidence that the EDS obverse has the gouge in the cap, I'll be more likely to eliminate VAM 91 A and keep 91”.

For VAM-91 A the SSDC registry census lists 18 with 1 detail, 2 PL and 2 DMPL.
I have four 91 A -- ANACS 63, NGC 63, PCGS 63, and PCGS 65. The ANACS 63 is attributed as VAM-91A MS63 PL. The other three are not VAM attributed and are not listed as PL or DMPL. However, all four have reflective obverse fields. The reverse on all four are not as reflective as their obverse. I have seen V-91 at coin shows, and on the internet, and as I remember most, if not all, had reflective obverse.

I suspect that many of the 91A in the SSDC census also have reflective obverse fields.

So, I think that the current V-91A are the EDS obverse, and they have the cap gouge.

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 3314
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by messydesk » Sun Jul 17, 2022 2:54 pm

Is either VAM 48 or 84 earlier die state with respect to the reverse?
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

User avatar
lewisr2
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by lewisr2 » Sun Jul 17, 2022 8:09 pm

messydesk asked above – “Is either VAM 48 or 84 earlier die state with respect to the reverse?”

I have two V-48, a 65 and a 64.
The 65 on reverse has a die crack that is above the E of AMERICA, then goes on the top of the R, then goes to the top of I. Also, the first has a die crack at top and between N and I then over to T of UNITED.
The 64 has the E-R-I die crack. It does not have the N-I-T die crack.

I have three V-84 a 63, a 64, and a 65+.
The 63 has the E-R-I die crack. It does not have the N-I-T die crack.
The 64 does not have the E-R-I die crack. It does not have the N-I-T die crack.
The 65+ does not have the E-R-I die crack. It does not have the N-I-T die crack. It does appear to have a die crack at top and between the T and E.

My four V-91A do not have any reverse die cracks.

To answer messydesk’s question, I would say no, the 48 and 84 both are later die state of 91A.

fogie
Posts: 1168
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 9:45 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by fogie » Sun Jul 17, 2022 8:42 pm

I have 2 x 91A and both have PL-ish fields. I have no 91. For what it is worth - I believe they all have the obverse gouge (91A).

User avatar
lewisr2
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 1878-S Vam 1, 54, 61, 67 maybe 91, 85 and 94 need to be reviewed

Post by lewisr2 » Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:53 am

fogie -- thanks for the info about PL-ish 91A.

How about more of you 78-S vammers check your 91A for PL-ish fields and reply in this discussion topic.

Post Reply