VAMWorld 2.0

Posted from ANACS

5302060 1873 TR$ COXE-2.1 15 significantly lower grade than my estimate, proof obverse die and I believe the reverse die was as well based on a diagnostic pointed out in the Challenge 50 pdf. The proof reverse was reused for proofs for subsequent years and unlikely to have been used for circulation strikes unless they preceded proof usage, a possibility since this was the second proof pairing.
5302061 1875 CC TR$ COXE-13 DAMAGED-TOOLED N8 as expected actually, need to try to locate another
5302062 1875 S TR$ COXE-26 CLEANED-RIM FILED AU higher grade than my estimate, elusive scarce small s
5302063 1876 CC TR$ COXE-2.1 CLEANED A5 AU55 Details is higher than my XF45 estimate, wide cc (used from each year 1873 through 1876 -- the 1875-cc use being arguably the rarest Trade dollar) with denticle impressions
5302064 1877 TR$ FS-101 COXE-13 CLEANED VF higher than my F15 Details estimate, one of 3 reverse pairings of the cherrypicker obverse die
5302065 1877 TR$ COXE-16.1 HOLED-DAMAGED AU higher than my XF45 Details estimate, interesting one with a dead center hole, useful for cataloguing purposes because the details were all there.
5302066 1877 S TR$ COXE-1.1 50 I estimated XF45 Details. Will take AU50. Just a small s variety with nothing else particularly special
5302067 1877 S TR$ COXE-4 CLEANED A5 AU55 Details beats my AU50 Details estimate, elusive re-engraved tail feather that was thought to be a different hub
5302068 1877 S TR$ COXE-19.1 45 my estimate was VF35 Details - nice!
5302069 1877 S TR$ COXE-29.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE EF estimated VF35 Details - close
5302070 1877 S TR$ COXE-29.1 CHOPMARKED POLISHED EF very obviously polished. I had estimated VF25 details
5302071 1877 S TR$ COXE-63.1 ALTERED SURFACES N8 estimated XF45 Details but thought it could have issues, blunt R/DOLLAR, no dots, radial break along O/DOLLAR
5302072 1877 S TR$ COXE-64.1 CLEANED E5 XF45 Details - I estimated XF40
5302073 1877 S TR$ COXE-65.1 CLEANED A5 estimated AU55 Details - bingo!
5302074 1878 S TR$ COXE-16.1 55 estimated AU55 Details - will take the straight grade, gouges slit Liberty's left wrist and are all over her lap
5302075 1878 S TR$ COXE-16.1 CLEANED V5 estimated VF25 Details - bingo!
5302076 1878 S TR$ COXE-16.1 CLEANED A8 AU58 Details beats my AU53 Details estimate
5302077 1936 TOKEN DAN CARR PEACE DOLLAR O/S ON USA 1922-1935 $ 70 CAMEO -- sweet! Bought this from Dan Carr at the Denver show as a spare at a pretty good premium to the one I bought at release. Dropped it with ANACS there too.

My grading is close to expert grading for some of them and off for others. What I had expected to slow down the order was a couple with authenticity questions. Passing it through others is indispensable for that.

Stop by my table (Select Rarities) at the Chicago ANA next month. I love to show the fun details in hand and with the DinoLite - no purchase necessary. Still have a lot of cool others too!

Nomenclature question: Do you prefer COXE-n, Coxe-n, or C-n for citing your catalog?

messydesk wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:05 am

Nomenclature question: Do you prefer COXE-n, Coxe-n, or C-n for citing your catalog?

I have to admit that my name for it was at least initially alarming. The goal was to simply catalogue the varieties for the remaining US silver dollar series that remained undone. I was using the C-n format to refer to them, as it seemed standard (B, BB, VAM), but I have a short name that might not clutter up labels. Either is fine. But since ANACS already spells it out, it probably would present less confusion to just continue with COXE-n or Coxe-n. If a competing guide comes up, the correspondence between the two won't be as crazy if the other publisher has a C surname. I just want to be able to support the series, particularly in our registry.

The typical format once a reference is well known is to just use the initial then the number. In a couple of years these will likely be C numbers, but for now spelling it out answers the inevitable question about the cited reference. I find I still spell out Fortin for Seated Dimes or Briggs for Seated Quarters

vampicker wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:17 pm

The typical format once a reference is well known is to just use the initial then the number. In a couple of years these will likely be C numbers, but for now spelling it out answers the inevitable question about the cited reference. I find I still spell out Fortin for Seated Dimes or Briggs for Seated Quarters

And BREEN will probably never be B.

Right

I think for half cents it already is B.

Breen's work on half cents is largely pointless. Cohen is the standard reference and die states are described in detail in Manley. The 2019 work by Eckberg is also worth having. I think there's another new work on half cents out, but I haven't seen it in hand

Put another way, superceding Breen has been a goal of many numismatists

vampicker wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 13, 2022 6:32 pm

...
Put another way, superceding Breen has been a goal of many numismatists

Not only a goal, but a priority.