1884 O VAM?

[lhnumis1]

Anyone know which 1884 O VAM identifies the subject coin below?

Obverse

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058OBV.jpg (78.62 KiB) Viewed 372 times

Date placement: very far.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058OBV2.jpg (51.39 KiB) Viewed 372 times

Date: no evidence of numeral doubling.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058OBV3.jpg (43.14 KiB) Viewed 372 times

Ear appears doubled at the inside right & bottom, & at the bottom of the earlobe.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058OBV5.jpg (48.3 KiB) Viewed 372 times

A threadlike die impression is noted in front of the eye.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058OBV6.jpg (28.78 KiB) Viewed 372 times

[MarkyB]

My guess is 20, 41, or 49. If that's pitting I see, I'd say LDS VAM 20. MM description or picture might help.

[lhnumis1]

Additional images...

In LIBERTY:Two raised diagonal lines are noted at the top of the I. Three diagonal raised lines are noted at the base and a dot noted at the top right of the B.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058OBV7.jpg (19.06 KiB) Viewed 369 times

A die crack emerges from a denticle to the right of the 4 and continues CCW through star 1 and above star 2 as shown.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058OBV8.jpg (71.85 KiB) Viewed 369 times

The die crack below continues CCW above star 3 through the bottom right of the hair and terminates in the field as shown.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058OBV9.jpg (39.17 KiB) Viewed 369 times

Reverse

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058REV.jpg (81.07 KiB) Viewed 369 times

The mintmark placement: upright, left and touching the lower threshold line. In additional the mintmark appears doubled at the outside top, upper right and middle right as well the inside bottom.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058REV2.jpg (81.58 KiB) Viewed 369 times

[lhnumis1]

additional images...

The inside upper left of the G of GOD is filled.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058REV3.jpg (21.16 KiB) Viewed 368 times

Raised lines in the wing-neck gap including an X are noted.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058REV4.jpg (11.71 KiB) Viewed 368 times

Three crossed lines on the 6th & 7th secondary wing feathers of the eagle's right wing are noted.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058REV5.jpg (22.53 KiB) Viewed 368 times

Three raised lines are noted in the left leg void and two raised lines in the form of a VEE are noted to the right of the upper tail feathers as shown.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058REV6.jpg (13.51 KiB) Viewed 368 times

[UNCLE BINGO]

v16B ?

[lhnumis1]

Thanks to MarkyB and Uncle Bingo for their responses. I believe that UB has the obverse correct as a V 16B. The reverse appears to be a different reverse than the 16 B. It appears that since the coin at hand has a doubled mintmark and other details that do not match the 16 B reverse that there is a new reverse for the 16 B. Call it a VAM 16 C??

Thanks guys!

[keilg1]

Definitely do not call this a VAM-16C as the VAM-16 listing does not mention any doubling of the mint mark so, if there really is doubling of the mint mark, it could not be part of the VAM-16 listing.

Looks to be a 16B but nothing more. If there is supposedly an O/O to it, it isn't a VAM-16 series as those don't, by definition, have an O/O reverse. If you think it a VAM-16B obverse with some other reverse, you'd need to get it looked at very carefully before calling it anything else but for now it's a 16B. If the described scratch in the upper right wing isn't there and the one you see really is... it might be a different reverse.

Good luck!!

[messydesk]

I'm guessing what you're seeing on the mint mark is machine doubling.

[MarkyB]

IMO the 16B date position doesn't match 16 or 16A and I've been concentrating on the far date/oval O reverses. If you can't match the lines in the MM or locate the line in the wing of 16B, you may indeed have a different reverse. Unfortunately, many far date listings are missing reverse information.

[UNCLE BINGO]

Thanks to MarkyB and Uncle Bingo for their responses. I believe that UB has the obverse correct as a V 16B. The reverse appears to be a different reverse than the 16 B. It appears that since the coin at hand has a doubled mintmark and other details that do not match the 16 B reverse that there is a new reverse for the 16 B. Call it a VAM 16 C??

Thanks guys!

@lhnumis1 I am not sure of all the particulars involved . I am tying to keep this VAM thing as simple as I can for now . I kinda of took a couple things into consideration while trying to find a match for your coin,. one was the obvious markers on the obverse , also there is the die crack visible in your pictures , I took a chance that the die crack meant your coin is probably a later die state than the one on the VAMWORLD page . About the possibility of your reverse being different? I can't answer what you are asking here . I mean it looked to me like the MM was in the same location as the pictures on the wiki . As far as it being a different reverse ? that would take some looking at LFCP's or multiple coins to say one way or the other ., that kind of thing lands in the die study realm,
Its a good thing only two people on this forum make the kind of judgment calls , needed to change listings, Because I sure could not do it
.I will wish you the very best of luck in your quest sir!

[lhnumis1]

Many thanks to all for their responses.

It appears that the obverse is certainly a VAM 16 B. The presence of the threadlike die impression in front of the eye in addition to other markers appears definitive.

The concern is whether or not the reverse of the subject coin matches the two images shown on the webpage for VAM 16 B.

Below is an image of the area on the subject coin that contains the area shown in the image of the VAM 16 B of the VAM webpage. As one can see, the subject coin image does NOT contain the die scratch shown on the VAM 16 B VAM webpage.

Below also, is an image of the position of the mintmark in the VAM 16 B webpage. Note that the mintmark position appears to be considerably above the low threshold line. This does NOT match the position of the mintmark on the subject coin, which touches the low threshold line.

I hasten to add, that the above “evidence” may be flawed. The subject coin is not mint state. Wear, die erosion etc., may have erased evidence of the die scratch in the VAM 16 B webpage image from the subject coin.

Although great care was taken in imaging the mintmark position of the subject coin, it may not have been enough care.

Without additional reverse image evidence to the contrary, it appears I am obliged to assume the subject coin to be an example of the VAM 16 B.

Thanks once again to MarkyB, Uncle Bingo, keilg1 and messydesk for their much appreciated responses and thoughtful analyses!

Die scratch area of VAM 16 B webpage image.

DOLLAR1884OLOT662C058REV7.jpg (105.86 KiB) Viewed 278 times

Mintmark placement of VAM 16 B webpage image.

RBF1884-OV16B-7.jpg (164.09 KiB) Viewed 278 times

[UNCLE BINGO]

@lhnumis1 If I were a little more computer savey , and both your MM picture and the one on the V16B page were not quite so zoomed in . I would make both of the pictures the same size as best I could and overlay them . I would try and find the most common reference points on both pictures, hoping to compensate for both die wear and circulation wear . I would even leave the way both of the red-lines have been draw on , so we could visualize any differences or similarities .
About a year ago we got on the subject of MM placement being subjective on this board . We have all seen the guides in the bigbook describing the ins and outs of tilt , left and Right , up and down . I have heard a lot of opinions about how to interpret the way the listings were written , but I also learned a great deal about just how different some folks found things like center line and what they used for reference points .

I am not saying you are right or wrong at all .

I am saying I am not absolutely sure if the MM on your specimen is in the same spot or not .

I did not really look for confirming die markers on both reverses pictured to explore the possibility of a different reverse on your specimen . So how does one really make the best educated guess on this stuff???? , Beats me