1901 O BOLD letter doubling on V 1A / 20

[keilg1]

Agree 100% that the only way to judge these are to have all variants in hand - especially the DCs. I have one I've called a 1A EDS because I saw no doubling of the 0 as described on the VAM-20 page (although my coin appears to match the pictures on that page).

Not wanting to add to the confusion, but have others seen a strong(er) doubling of the neck on what I'd call an EDS (mine has clear ear gouges and two transferred 't's in the hair vee). None of the pictures on the 1A or 20 page show what I see. Doestn't look like strike doubling but I could be wrong.

A085 - 20211213_182100.jpg (112.51 KiB) Viewed 463 times

[ljs123]

Why would it be an EDS if it is clashed twice with two t transfers?
One t transfer should be the EDS.
Or better yet, as JB alluded to, break it into three different listings for each t transfer.

[keilg1]

Why would it be an EDS if it is clashed twice with two t transfers?
One t transfer should be the EDS.
Or better yet, as JB alluded to, break it into three different listings for each t transfer.

Above my paygrade to decide, but the clashes could have happend in such a rapid fashion that there was no variety with a single clash. As none have ever been reported the double 't' letter transfer might be the EDS, the MDS (at least on the VAM-20 page) shows the neck clash marks but the 't'(s) disappear (fade due to die wear in that area), only to have a much stronger clash happen a third time that results in the LDS and beautiful full 't' transfer?

Can't wait to hear the decision by people smarter and more experienced than me!

[ljs123]

If we can agree it had to have had one clash before a second clash, then it would mean that the EDS is the single clashed t, and two t transfers would be the MDS.
Both t transfers cannot have happened during a single clash event.
It doesn’t matter how rare a single t may or may not be.

[messydesk]

...
Both t transfers cannot have happened during a single clash event.
It doesn’t matter how rare a single t may or may not be.

Correct, but two clashes can happen without a coin being struck between them.

[ljs123]

You had me at correct.

[ljs123]

...
Both t transfers cannot have happened during a single clash event.
It doesn’t matter how rare a single t may or may not be.

Correct, but two clashes can happen without a coin being struck between them.

In that scenario, wouldn’t that mean that there is no MDS?
EDS would be the two t transfer.
LDS would be the full t transfer.

[ljs123]

Why would it be an EDS if it is clashed twice with two t transfers?
One t transfer should be the EDS.
Or better yet, as JB alluded to, break it into three different listings for each t transfer.

Above my paygrade to decide, but the clashes could have happend in such a rapid fashion that there was no variety with a single clash. As none have ever been reported the double 't' letter transfer might be the EDS, the MDS (at least on the VAM-20 page) shows the neck clash marks but the 't'(s) disappear (fade due to die wear in that area), only to have a much stronger clash happen a third time that results in the LDS and beautiful full 't' transfer?

Can't wait to hear the decision by people smarter and more experienced than me!

We need to remember that much if not all photos on the VAM-20 page are really of vam-1A.
Does VAM 20 come between VAM-1A? The double clash t shows up in the LDS VAM-1A full t. That would mean there are two more partial clash t events before the monster full t.
Total 5 clash t events.

[messydesk]

Refer to the VAM book and you'll see that VAM 20 came before VAM 1A. You'll also see unmistakable doubling on the lower edge of the 0 as well as the picture of the line in the ear. The repunched 0 fades away in later die stages. Send me a pile of all the different die stages and I'll fix the listing.

[demetri]

Yes, with no clash. I got that

[vampicker]

Couple of thoughts on this thread. First off I'm guessing the VAM 1B reference on the page was a typo. There is the issue of VAM 20 having a different reverse also raised. @fogie should be able to clear this up because the page history indicates he posted the note. If his VAM 20 actually does have a different reverse, we probably need to dig a little deeper.

In my old VAM book, I have a note that I confirmed VAM 20 was the same marriage in an earlier stage.

If needed, I have an example of the late stage of VAM 1A with the complete t clash. It's actually the plate coin for the stage from Kimpton's book. My coin is a dead on match for the markers illustrated on the VW page too.

Last thing, the coin in the original post is textbook strike doubling, and worth looking at over and over again. Note how the primary image has been thinned out like metal has been pulled from it. A classic illustration of the shearing effect strike doubled coins are subjected to.

[demetri]

Yes, that great article by JT Stanton posted at top was a great help. It is my first strike doubling I encountered. I will be sending this coin for grading soon so I look forward to seeing where this coin actually falls in the new listing. So far Im at the v1A MDS stage (I think)so we will see if it still stands afterwards.

[impairedsquirrel]

...
Both t transfers cannot have happened during a single clash event.
It doesn’t matter how rare a single t may or may not be.

Correct, but two clashes can happen without a coin being struck between them.

In that scenario, wouldn’t that mean that there is no MDS?
EDS would be the two t transfer.
LDS would be the full t transfer.

Lee, this was the point of me calling the OP an EDS... As far as I know there haven't been any single clashed coins found and I sort of thought "we" always referred to the double as the EDS and the strong as the LDS.

[ljs123]

Correct, but two clashes can happen without a coin being struck between them.

In that scenario, wouldn’t that mean that there is no MDS?
EDS would be the two t transfer.
LDS would be the full t transfer.

Lee, this was the point of me calling the OP an EDS... As far as I know there haven't been any single clashed coins found and I sort of thought "we" always referred to the double as the EDS and the strong as the LDS.

My point is that the 1A and 20 pages are a mess. The notes are confusing (ex the 20 cannot be an EDS 1A) and most photos on the 20 page are of 1A. The die states noted on the pages can’t be correct.
The point I was making about 1A being EDS, MDS, LDS goes back to the listings that JB mentioned might be appropriate if(big IF) he had ALL the coins presented to him being 20, 20A, 20B, and 20c. That assumes a single clashed t was found to show him. But it also goes to the fact that the pages refer to EDS, MDS, and LDS.
I have tried to point out;
1. The pages are a mess
2. 20 cannot be EDS 1A
3. And 20 doesn’t come between clashed ts and clashed t.