1900P new variety

[Remodeling1]

Hello all. I have reviewed and discussed this coin with my coin collecting groups and it has been decided that it is unlisted. Can I have your eyes verify and guide me through the process? It is double clashed and has significant doubling obv and rev. Prior scrubs are seen easily and new clashing seen with naked eye and some under scope. [/img]

[hairfield1]

Have you looked at V-5A

[Remodeling1]

Certainly. The clashing is in different locations besides the one at the neck. Also the date position is incorrect. To further eliminate that vam, doubling is present most notably on reverse in all devices and obverse on date, eye, and ear.

[Remodeling1]

Under the neck is a double clash

[DHalladay]

Has the possibility of the reverse doubling being strike doubling been eliminated?

[messydesk]

Please post what you see as doubling and a close-up of the date showing the position. It looks like a slanted date, but I can't be sure from the pictures. The clashing is not strong enough to have warranted being listed on its own.

[RMG1883CC]

And maybe some photos that are USABLE,,,,,,,,, correctly positioned. These from a phone??? Talk to your group about that.

[ljs123]

Please post what you see as doubling and a close-up of the date showing the position. It looks like a slanted date, but I can't be sure from the pictures. The clashing is not strong enough to have warranted being listed on its own.

I was also thinking slanted date, and his 1 looks close to the rim. VAM-4 is listed as "Low Date", but the VAM-4 date photo also looks slanted.
So the slanted date search could be tricky.

[Remodeling1]

I'm not sure why the smart comments but I'd much rather submit to the professional and let Leroy decide. The neck shows a letter and is string enough to warrant on its own. Yes I have many pictures of doubling present. I'm very sorry to whoever has a hard time seeing the coin at 90deg. I'll post better pics.

[Remodeling1]

This has been reviewed by CONECA rep as its sits. Went through 60 photos with him via video call. Without a shadow of a doubt it is a double clash. Vam 5a looks to be the fix for this coin in his opinion. Regardless Leroy will be the authority.

[Remodeling1]

20190514_192232.jpg (89.99 KiB) Viewed 2572 times

this is just a small fraction of doubling present. Sorry the photos orient differently when uploading. Nothing I can do.

[Remodeling1]

Here are a few more pictures for yall

[ljs123]

It may look similar to VAM-5A, but it is not a 5A.

1. The date location is not a match for VAM-5A. Notice the 5A date is not slanted (the 1 and the last 0 are the same distance from the rim). Your coin photos clearly show the 1 close to the rim and the last 0 much farther away from the rim. The dates do not match, so they are not the same VAM.

2. The clash location looks similar to VAM-5A, but on close examination they are in different locations. The clashes do not match, so they are not the same VAM.

[ljs123]

Can you show us a close up of the ear?

[Mhomei]

Looks like a V23
....I agree no chance it's a V5A

[Remodeling1]

Hopefully this ear pic went through

[Remodeling1]

Got it to load

[Remodeling1]

V23 is an open 9. My coin is a closed 9.

[lured_in_again]

It looks like it could fall into the VAM 14 classification - multiple dies exist. The filled "G" of GOD could help ID it.

[Remodeling1]

It's not listed