1896-P Possible Discovery?

[SilverToken]

1896-P Possible Discovery?

I am re-submitting for review by members of the forum a possible new die stage discovery of 1896-P VAM 4/4A Double Star Top 100, before proceeding to actual submission as the guidelines say.

My previous post, “1896-P Vam 4 or 4a”, received little to no feedback, other than messydesk’s answer of probably a worn die, which gave me a goal before making a poor, rejected submission. My new evidence is as follows:

1) There is only evidence of the horizontal die gouge at two right cotton leaves on the Phrygian cap, and NOT the additional scratches/gouges in the field UN of UNUM that is listed and found on the VAM 4A. This is the only difference in the written description between this submission coin and the VAM 4 or 4A. Absence of these separate gouges, when the gouges were named specifically to create a new VAM, may be evidence of a different, previous, or later VAM stage. I believe this coin to be a new stage between VAMs 4 and 4A.

To support the Die Progression Theory....

2) An unlisted die crack on the obverse of VAM 4A is not present on my coin. The VAMworld picture by John Roberts of 1896-P VAM 4A on the reverse shows a distinct crack above AT in STATES. This progression, logically, must be a later state than a not cracked coin. My in-hand 4 samples do not have this die crack feature, while my in-hand VAM 4a samples do . The submission coin has no die crack, therefore I have concluded it to be an intermediate stage between 4 and 4A.

3) Unlisted is an “error due to ejection impact or die slide when the coin was ejected right after struck” (“collar clash” posting on forum answered by Unc90o). The denticles are crushed 1/2 way in a circular pattern from the 5:00 position to the 10:00 position on the obverse. This is not evident on VAM 4, but is evident on 4A. This means this coin is a later stage than VAM 4. I have compared to other in-hand examples of both VAM 4 and 4A. The error is also clear on the VAM site picture by John Roberts of the 1896-P VAM 4A.

4) Finally, I have 2 examples of this intermediate stage. I have been told that one of the best forms of evidence to confirm a possible new VAM submission is to provide a second example that has the feature. Both coins are raw high-AU to MS.

All of the feature discussed above are viewable with a loupe. Under higher magnification, no wear or additional polishing lines can be found that indicate removal of the gouges in the UN field, including the missing gouges found inside the letters.

Please give questions and feedback on whether to proceed with submission of these coins, and whether you would suggest sending to JB or JR @ ANACS for grading and encapsulation. Not sure if ANACS has a double slab if these are Discovery coins, it would be super cool to join the two, if it is a discovery.

[vampicker]

That ejection doubling on the denticles is strike doubling. It can be repetitive (strike doubling usually is), but it is not something I will ever support listing.

I'll add that 'look' on the denticles is common and can be found on many marriages across almost every date.

However, you do appear to have a newly listed stage. It looks like you have the gouge on the cap but not in the field like you stated. This is actually a later stage that VAM 4A. The lines in the field were either polished out or wore off the die forming VAM 4B

[messydesk]

However, you do appear to have a newly listed stage. It looks like you have the gouge on the cap but not in the field like you stated. This is actually a later stage that VAM 4A. The lines in the field were either polished out or wore off the die forming VAM 4B

The reverse die is also different from, although every bit as non-descript as, the VAM 4/4A reverse.

[SilverToken]

Just Curious- I posted about this back in Dec 27, 2021 "1896 P Vam 4 or 4a?" with this Discovery coin. I did more research, sought and found a second coin to show subsequent coins and re-submitted the post on the forum as directed by the instructions.

I looked this morning and magically a "NEW 1896 VAM 4B" has been slipped into the VAM by date list "Discovered" by "Michael Dustin" at 9:02 am yesterday, 8 minutes after I posted and 30 and 52 minutes before the responses from JR and JB, our 2 co-VAM Creators. "Michael" didn't follow protocol and never posted this coin for review on the forum as instructions say.

Not to mention the quickly zoomed image posted to show the gouges missing in UN area in-fact are the NU area, the second U did not have gouges, which actually abut the cap as well.

So I gotta ask why do the rules apply to some and not to a guy with a dime?

[vampicker]

The individual in question was not a member of VAM World and his find was first listed by Van Allen in the annual update. Apparently the stage was listed in 2018 but garnered little attention. The new listing is a revision. We saw the coins in hand at the ANA and revised the progression.

I find your implication that you closed with personally offensive

[messydesk]

The coins in question for the entire die progression were physically brought to us at the ANA show where we could examine them and take the time to get the stages correct. Pictures don't tell a complete story. For convenience, I'll repeat my response to your thread (emphasis added):

The short answer is that for now I would call it VAM 4.

The long answer becomes complicated. Looking at the pictures of VAM 4A, the gouges in the field are easy to see. What I must wonder, however, is if the reason you don’t have them on your coin is due to die wear or because the gouge in the cap came first, then the gouges in the field happened. If die wear, then you’d have a later die stage of VAM 4A. If it’s because the field gouges showed up later, similar to how the 21-S Thornhead developed, then I’d be inclined to specify VAM 4B as the distinct die stage before VAM 4A that only has the gouge in the cap. I would need to examine the coin in hand, however.

The coins brought to us answered the question I asked back in December.

[PickNGrin]

Just Curious- I posted about this back in Dec 27, 2021 "1896 P Vam 4 or 4a?" with this Discovery coin. I did more research, sought and found a second coin to show subsequent coins and re-submitted the post on the forum as directed by the instructions.

I looked this morning and magically a "NEW 1896 VAM 4B" has been slipped into the VAM by date list "Discovered" by "Michael Dustin" at 9:02 am yesterday, 8 minutes after I posted and 30 and 52 minutes before the responses from JR and JB, our 2 co-VAM Creators. "Michael" didn't follow protocol and never posted this coin for review on the forum as instructions say.

Not to mention the quickly zoomed image posted to show the gouges missing in UN area in-fact are the NU area, the second U did not have gouges, which actually abut the cap as well.

So I gotta ask why do the rules apply to some and not to a guy with a dime?

SilverToken,

I understand your frustration and find your work very informative to VW.

The discoverer of the 1896 Vam 4B discussed his discovery with me back in 2019. This guy is one of the most honest coin collectors you will ever meet and I 100% vouch to his integrity.

Also, both John's are equally credible and honest with their work.

Keep up this level of work and you will soon have many discoveries.

[messydesk]

I see where there may have been some confusion about the existence of VAM 4B, as there was no page for it on VAMWorld for some reason, even though it's been in the supplement since 2018. As John R said, these latest updates simply corrected the order in which they were produced.

[coinsupclose]

This is Michael Dustin

Not much to add to what the others have said above, but since I was mentioned I figured I’d at least chime in.

I did discover this die marriage in 2018. LVA listed it that same year as a result of me sending him a sequence of VAM 4s for review.

Hopefully any confusion is now cleared up!

[DHalladay]

I see where there may have been some confusion about the existence of VAM 4B, as there was no page for it on VAMWorld for some reason, even though it's been in the supplement since 2018. As John R said, these latest updates simply corrected the order in which they were produced.

This is a message to everyone who gets a new discovery in the future. Attribution pages for new VAMs don't just happen. The information (discovery letter and plate images) is not automatically forwarded to a proverbial "someone" at SSDC to take care of things. That information has to be shared by the discoverer with someone who knows the ins and outs of the coding involved with the attribution pages who will create a new page. Otherwise, new pages don't get created and situations like this are repeated.

[vampicker]

There's another message here too. Not every VAM collector is on VAM World. If you didn't catch it, that was Michael's first post ever.

[messydesk]

And another message -- check Leroy's supplements if something seems off.

[SilverToken]

Just my responses to all who have participated in the discussion. I am not going to make this a poke-fest, as social media can turn ugly, and there is enough tarnish in this world. During my member status time on the SSDC Forum, I have had members and non-members share their knowledge freely, some 150%, and for that I am grateful. I feel that as a vested hobbyist, situations like these are what damages the industry and turns off the move to being a Numismatist or Dealer... who needs the grief? I have not stated anything that did not happen (actually left out a changed post detail as to not embarrass a member) and am unapologetic for questioning all facts, which is the purpose of an open forum. It’s suppose to be informational.

1) It would have been courteous and responsible back in December 2021, when I was originally birddogging this new VAM, to inform me about Michael Dunstin’s find in 2018 instead of the response to send it in. From the new evidence presented, both site administrators and at least one member had direct knowledge of this VAM, it would have saved me a lot of time, research and coin flipping.

2) I can only ponder and surmise that if I had sent the 1896 VAM 4B back in December as messydesk directed, it would have been inspected, graded, photographed and slabbed as a 4B but not labeled as the Discovery Coin, the Discovery credit still going to Numismatist Micheal Dustin from 2018 and Hobbyist SilverToken only supplying a verification of a second example and getting a minor photo credit, and a slabbing bill.

3) I welcome Michael Dustin “coinsupclose" to the Forum. I sure wish Michael would have at least created the free login years ago, it would have saved time for me and some embarrassment for the site managers when I first posted about this discovery question last December. I would think Michael would have responded. As it appears, I was a day late, with the references available to my knowledge. Since there are only 3 known and it’s a Top 100, maybe Michael's second post can be on “What’s it Worth?” The pictures are already online and it would be fun to know.

4) Question for Michael "coinsupclose" - Did you have your coin Graded and Slabbed as Discovery Coin by ANACS or will you be leaving it raw? If sending it to PCGS or NGC and would they recognize the Discovery or 4B VAM notation?

5) Where is “LVA’s 2018 Annual Supplement” posted, and other VAM supplements, and does every member have access to them? Seems reckless to use proprietary evidence against those whom cannot even access the information, if that is the case.

6) Shouldn't the image of the "UN" be corrected from the posted "NU" on the NEW 1896-P VAM 4B page for all collectors? The missing field gouge in the center of the first "U" is defining and would correct the page.

In closing, at least I take comfort in knowing I was the first member of Vam World to find, photograph and post my findings for all to view and check on SSDC, openly sharing the information for all to learn from, and believe me... I learned.

[DHalladay]

The number of VAMs that PCGS chooses to attribute on its holders is extremely small. The number of VAMs it attributes that are not on a major list (8TF, Top 100, Hot 50, Hit List 40 for example) is miniscule.

PCGS has had a longtime policy of not putting "Discovery Coin" on its holders. I have seen a couple of exceptions, but only one was a VAM.