1900 O VAM?

[lhnumis1]

The 1900 O shown in images below has not yielded to efforts to attribute it with a VAM #... The coin exhibits a slanted date as follows:
1: 174 px
9: 184 px
0: 195 px
0: 203 px

Find additional images in follow-up posts...

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV.jpg (72.05 KiB) Viewed 314 times

Date set at normal

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV7.jpg (32.58 KiB) Viewed 314 times

Ear is doubled at bottom of earlobe

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV4.jpg (38.11 KiB) Viewed 314 times

Lines in 'R' & 'T' of 'LIBERTY". Line in 'T' extends into void above 'y'

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV2.jpg (40.54 KiB) Viewed 314 times

Line in lower cotton leaves void

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV3.jpg (22.92 KiB) Viewed 314 times

[lhnumis1]

Find additional images below...

Lines in void below 'Y' of 'LIBERTY'

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV5.jpg (23.05 KiB) Viewed 308 times

Die crack between 1st star on left and tip of bust

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV6.jpg (35.89 KiB) Viewed 308 times

Reverse

DOLLAR1900OLOT488REV.jpg (77.19 KiB) Viewed 308 times

The O mintmark is set upright and slightly high. In addition it is set right.

DOLLAR1900OLOT488REV2.jpg (54.28 KiB) Viewed 308 times

'A' & 'R' of Dollar appears slightly doubled

DOLLAR1900OLOT488REV3.jpg (42.86 KiB) Viewed 308 times

[lhnumis1]

Additional images...

Lines in the wing-neck gap

DOLLAR1900OLOT488REV4.jpg (26.52 KiB) Viewed 308 times

[Bigbub]

Try VAM-42

[lhnumis1]

Thank you Bigbub for responding with candidate VAM 42

When the 4 images below, of the date and mintmark placements, are compared with each other, it seems difficult to conclude that they match.

Note the date setting of the '1' in the subject coin, is not quite in the middle of denticle 3...the date setting of VAM42 appears to be near the left edge of denticle 3, as indicated in the VAM 42 description.

Also note the mintmark setting of the subject coin appears slightly high and shifted right not quite half the width of the opening of the 'O'. The VAM 42 also appears slightly high but appears to be centered.

Your take would be much appreciated.

Date setting of subject coin

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV7.jpg (32.58 KiB) Viewed 293 times

Date setting of VAM 42

Razr_1900_O_42_DateA.jpg (58.81 KiB) Viewed 293 times

Mintmark setting of subject coin

DOLLAR1900OLOT488REV2.jpg (54.28 KiB) Viewed 293 times

Mintmark setting of VAM 42

Razr_1900_O_42_MM.jpg (246.51 KiB) Viewed 293 times

[keilg1]

The 'px' digit desingations are a nice attempt to objectively measure the potential slant, but they are not really meaningful to most of us. In addition to that type of precision being way beyond historical means/approaches, it doesn't necessarily fit the description of 'within normal tolerance' (i.e., all digits vary to some degree but there is no hard/fast rule of what constitutes normal versus slanted).

Better is to look more holistically. You've provided numerical measurements, but not an up-close picture of the entire date. As I see it, and I can't see it very well, you've got a normal, nonslanted date, with a normally placed mint mark (not high enought to be high - and your reference guide is 'slanted' - not touching both bottoms of the wreath bow, making it appear higher than it actually is).

If this is correct, you're limited to the following VAMs: 1, the 2 variants, 61 and 65. If you think it slanted, and with a normal mint mark, you're looking at the 38 variants. (Note, 38A and 38C appear to be near dates by their photos but these are not relevant because your coin is not clashed.)

Nice PUPs in general, yetperhaps part of what you're seeing is not quite on point: the supposed doubling of the AR doesn't look like it to me... But it all might add up to someone's eyes capturing what we can't.

Sorry I'm not able to help you pinpoint what it is. Hoping other more experienced eyes will look and use their fingers to reply to help ya.

[lhnumis1]

Thank you keilg1 for responding. I will attempt in the following to support my position on the subject coin.

The points indicated by keilg1 certainly have historical merit but I think my approach also has its utility and in addition precision. In view of the fact that many of us use digital images routinely, why not try therefore, to use the tools at hand to quantify what in the past was not quantifiable.

Below, find 4 digital images of the individual numerals in the date and a fifth image of the entire date of the subject coin. Each numeral in turn is somewhat higher above the edge (in this instance using the shadow of the reverse edge). The reverse edge was used as it appears to be more uniform in its circularity than the obverse edge in this case (either obverse or reverse edge may be used).

The follow-up post continues this response....

Full date

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV9.jpg (96.21 KiB) Viewed 266 times

The '1' (212 px), along with date position

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV10.jpg (66.73 KiB) Viewed 266 times

The '9' (219 px)

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV11.jpg (51.3 KiB) Viewed 266 times

The left '0' (224 px)

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV12.jpg (39.73 KiB) Viewed 266 times

The right '0' (229px)

DOLLAR1900OLOT488OBV13.jpg (51.4 KiB) Viewed 266 times

[lhnumis1]

With regard to the position of the ‘O’ mintmark, please examine the image below of the Mintmark Position & Orientation Guide. I have added indications (in light blue) with regard to the horizontal lines (Position Guides).

They indicate that the line on the high position of the mintmark does not always align with both lower loops of the ribbon endpoints; nor does the low position line always align with the tops of the ‘D’ and ‘O’ of ‘Dollar’. Some dates & mints do align, others do not. It depends on the actual coin at hand. In the case of the coins at hand, the upper line does not align for the subject coin, but does align for VAM 42.

Allow me to point out that the line drawn on the high position of the mintmark of the subject coin (original image above), is not slanted; it is drawn at 180 degrees (horizontally) in parallel with the ribbon loop tops above, used as a standard.

Mintmark position & orientation guides

Sentry02-MM.jpeg (97.02 KiB) Viewed 265 times

I trust that my analysis of the subject coin and VAM 42 is correct and that VAM 42 is not a match. Many thanks once again to keigl1 for taking the time to give his judgement of the subject coin & related material. It is truly much appreciated.