Just picked up my 2nd O/CC a few days ago, a Vam-8 to go with my Vam-10...
Strange question on the 1900-O/CC vams
Forum rules
All posts to this forum must abide by the posting rules. Continued posting to any VAMWorld forum constitutes acceptance of the rules.
All posts to this forum must abide by the posting rules. Continued posting to any VAMWorld forum constitutes acceptance of the rules.
Strange question on the 1900-O/CC vams
So seeing some of the 10 or so 1900-O/CC vams, kinda makes me wonder if any of the reverse CC dies match up with any known reverses of 1893 or earlier, or were these simply unused dies for any given date? I have seen several other ideas tossed about on this topic, but not this question to my knowledge.
Just picked up my 2nd O/CC a few days ago, a Vam-8 to go with my Vam-10...
Just picked up my 2nd O/CC a few days ago, a Vam-8 to go with my Vam-10...
-
UNCLE BINGO
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:41 pm
Re: Strange question on the 1900-O/CC vams
That' s my only 1893 cc .. MM is kinda big . This sounds like a really hard question . Maybe only answered by mint records ... Good luck
- QS222LLN4.JPG (130.8 KiB) Viewed 261 times
Proud winner of Worst new Vammer of the year 
-
pup_picker
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 3:31 pm
Re: Strange question on the 1900-O/CC vams
if you go to each vam page, there are names for each obverse and reverse die.
you can scrutinize and comments/links from the o/cc pages as if there is going to be some info, those are good places to start.
do you have any vam books? SURELY there is commentary somewhere.
you can scrutinize and comments/links from the o/cc pages as if there is going to be some info, those are good places to start.
do you have any vam books? SURELY there is commentary somewhere.
-
UNCLE BINGO
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:41 pm
Re: Strange question on the 1900-O/CC vams
What PUP Picker said seems reasonable, you might could figure it out . The last sentence in the red book copy i have just says ." ALL are of the old style -hub, as the CC dies were made years earlier "
Proud winner of Worst new Vammer of the year
Re: Strange question on the 1900-O/CC vams
I had brought that up earlier but had not followed it up. There also are no O/CC prooflikes. Maybe Roger has seen some documentation relating that they were returned unused reverse dies?
Reusing reverses in Carson City over years, too, is something to pursue. I know it was an extensive practice for Trade dollars in the same era at the same mint. (The two 1875-S/CC Trade reverses were unused prior to San Francisco, but that was a matter of a short time interval, not the better part of a a decade.)
Reusing reverses in Carson City over years, too, is something to pursue. I know it was an extensive practice for Trade dollars in the same era at the same mint. (The two 1875-S/CC Trade reverses were unused prior to San Francisco, but that was a matter of a short time interval, not the better part of a a decade.)
Re: Strange question on the 1900-O/CC vams
Re: "Maybe Roger has seen some documentation relating that they were returned unused reverse dies?"
If you meant me, here is some relevant information.
Beginning in 1881 the Mint Director required all previous year dies returned the Engraving Dept. The Engraver then matched the dies with his list of those issued. All obverse dies were destroyed. (Western mints usually cancelled their own obv to avoid the cost of shipping east.) Most reverse dies were also destroyed except for those the Engraver deemed suitable for re-issue. These were segregated by mintmark and given new numbers as part of the new calendar year's die sequence.
The mints were no longer allowed to retain old dies.
Re-issued dies might have been made in any year, but care was taken to have a correct coining match between the current obv hub design and the reverse dies. In several letters the Engraver identified an obv/rev hub mismatch as the cause of poor die life at the Carson Mint.
O/CC dies might also have been made in the early 1890s but never hardened or shipped, then pressed into service at New Orleans in 1900 when an engineer was sent there to identify the cause of broken dies and poor quality coins. The dies might (speculation) have been ones sent NO for testing, but the coins actually accepted and released.
If you meant me, here is some relevant information.
Beginning in 1881 the Mint Director required all previous year dies returned the Engraving Dept. The Engraver then matched the dies with his list of those issued. All obverse dies were destroyed. (Western mints usually cancelled their own obv to avoid the cost of shipping east.) Most reverse dies were also destroyed except for those the Engraver deemed suitable for re-issue. These were segregated by mintmark and given new numbers as part of the new calendar year's die sequence.
The mints were no longer allowed to retain old dies.
Re-issued dies might have been made in any year, but care was taken to have a correct coining match between the current obv hub design and the reverse dies. In several letters the Engraver identified an obv/rev hub mismatch as the cause of poor die life at the Carson Mint.
O/CC dies might also have been made in the early 1890s but never hardened or shipped, then pressed into service at New Orleans in 1900 when an engineer was sent there to identify the cause of broken dies and poor quality coins. The dies might (speculation) have been ones sent NO for testing, but the coins actually accepted and released.