VAMWorld 2.0

The Coin In Hand was originally attributed as an 1889 VAM52. It seems that it has changed via the new VAM system to VAM1C1 or VAM1C2. The comment section in 1C1, 1C2 is opaque to my understanding and as a result, I am at a loss to decide which it is. The CIH exhibits the gouge at the neck & 2nd star at the right. The die scratches under the tail feathers are present; the denticle impressions under the tail feathers are absent. All thoughts & comments welcome. See images of the CIH below.

The way I am reading it, it would be a C2 since the denticles are missing from wear. C1 has the denticles. I am not as wise as most here. Just trying to help.

blaircountycoin wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:35 pm

The way I am reading it, it would be a C2 since the denticles are missing from wear. C1 has the denticles. I am not as wise as most here. Just trying to help.

Thanks blaircountycoin for your take on my confusion. I am inclined to agree with you.

The problem I have is the following:
The comment drawn from the VAM 1C1, VAM 1C2 webpages, asserts that VAM 1C has the die scratches from VAM 52 but does NOT have the doubled ear, die gouge on the neck or the die gouge @ the 2nd star on the right. It then goes on to explain the VAM 1C is broken down into two types: VAM 1C1 has the 2 denticle impressions and the VAM 1C2 is without the 2 denticle impressions.

This statement means to me that both VAM 1C1 & VAM 1C2 are absent the doubled ear, the die gouge @ the neck and the die gouge at the 2nd Star on the right. (I inadvertently neglected to show an image of the doubled ear of the CIH-see image below).

The CIH has the doubled ear, die gouge @ the neck and the die gouge at the 2nd star as the CIH images clearly show. This appears to be inconsistent with the comment about VAM 1C/VAM 52.

In his description of VAM52, vampicker explains that VAM 1C1 &
VAM 52 are two different states of the same die. I believe he has it correct and you & I have it correct that the CIH is an example of 1C2 (without denticle impressions). This would mean that the comment describing VAM 1C/VAM 52 above must be changed to comport with vampiker’s observation of VAM 1C1 & VAM 52.

I agree with your thought. He should have stated that previous V52,1C1, and 1C2 are of the same die marriage and are just different die stages.