Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

General discussion board about VAMs, but no buy/sell offers
Post Reply
User avatar
UncleGildy
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 am

Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by UncleGildy » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:19 am

I managed to capture a few photos of this 97O. But ran into a Fundamental question, I'm seeking help with first:

If all the fine die markers shown in VAM-6 match this coin, doesn't that mean the coins shared the same physical die (not juts die class)?

And if that's so, then how come the crack patterns in the second LFCP for VAM-6 are so wildly different than that on this coin?

On to the attribution and a few regional close-up photos.

The crack pattern is not found on any known "O set high, tilted right" variety. Specifically, it is not shared with any of the VAM-6 series. As implied above, it shares the die markers for the VAM-6, OBV and REV, but NOT the cracks shown in the second LFCP. Here's what I saw before trying to capture close up photos. (LFCP from previous post is HERE.)
97O-CrackPattern-Gildy.jpg
97O-CrackPattern-Gildy.jpg (303.84 KiB) Viewed 868 times
Here's the field below DOLLAR,
97O_DOL-Field_Gildy.jpg
97O_DOL-Field_Gildy.jpg (271.16 KiB) Viewed 868 times
and the field above UNITED.
97O_UNIT-Field_Gildy.jpg
97O_UNIT-Field_Gildy.jpg (131.45 KiB) Viewed 868 times
The Cracks/breaks in UNITED are here,
97O_TED-Break_Gildy.jpg
97O_TED-Break_Gildy.jpg (60.29 KiB) Viewed 868 times
Here's the field above STATES. As well as a small collar clash on the rim (the holder covers most of it).
97O_STA-Field_Gildy.jpg
97O_STA-Field_Gildy.jpg (289.02 KiB) Viewed 868 times
Last edited by UncleGildy on Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
UncleGildy
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 am

Re: Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by UncleGildy » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:21 am

Two items not seen in any of the photos of listings for the VAM-6 series are below. Gouge/Line in denticle and raised metal (polishing) at Left wing tip.
97O_WingTip_Gildy.jpg
97O_WingTip_Gildy.jpg (100.23 KiB) Viewed 867 times
Dot in STATES between T and A, and crack/break above A.
97O_DotBreakA_Gildy.jpg
97O_DotBreakA_Gildy.jpg (169.96 KiB) Viewed 867 times
Just for fun, here's the interesting crack roller coaster pattern through both O's in "One dOllar" and potential N-E break.
97O_ONE-DOL-CrackBrk_Gildy.jpg
97O_ONE-DOL-CrackBrk_Gildy.jpg (248.4 KiB) Viewed 867 times
Think there's enough here to say this is a new die pair, maybe VAM-6D?

User avatar
LateDateMorganGuy
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:11 am

Re: Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by LateDateMorganGuy » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:39 am

Okay, I did not respond to your previous post. Was waiting to see what others had to say, but nobody chimed in.

The EDS of V6A/6B by default is a V6.

The EDS of V6C is a V6 by default.

The die pairs of V6A/6B are different than the V6C.

The coin used to list the V6 is unknown, meaning the die pair used to list it, or die pairs, will never be fully known.

The V6 is a die classification, meaning multiple die pairs exist.

So, coming back to your coin, it is an unlisted die pair based on my die study. Yeah, it could very well fit into the V6 die classification. But that is for Leroy to decide. If you nudge him in that direction when you submit it, maybe he would list it that way.

You ask about the cracks being displaced field breaks. This is where I have to try and hold my tongue. I have mentioned the new wild, wild, west of VAMming in past responses of mine. This is one of the subjects I refer to. What qualifies as a displaced field break today just used to be a crack that wasn't listed just a few years ago.

As Messy stated on the V6C page, the V6C DC is what a displaced field break is SUPPOSED to look like.

I would predict that if your coin goes to Leroy, you will get a two-fer, one for an EDS coin without the cracks, and one with the cracks that he would list as displaced field breaks.

Now before anyone jumps my cage, it is always Leroy's call. I personally don't send stuff like this to Leroy for new listings. I would personally use the die classification system and put a little white sticker on it and write VAM-6 on the sticker.

UncleGildy, please do what you want.

User avatar
UncleGildy
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 am

Re: Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by UncleGildy » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:49 am

LateDateMorganGuy wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:39 am
The EDS of V6A/6B by default is a V6.
The EDS of V6C is a V6 by default.
The die pairs of V6A/6B are different than the V6C.
The coin used to list the V6 is unknown, meaning the die pair used to list it, or die pairs, will never be fully known.
The V6 is a die classification, meaning multiple die pairs exist.
Thanks LateDateMorganGuy - this answers my questions, but I'd like to make sure I got the whole picture. Please know - I very much appreciate the help and guidance here!

So, VAM-6 is just the classification. Got it. I have the essentials (date and m/m position), and since I happen to have all the fine die markers of the die pair called out in the VW listing, this suggests it is the same die pair as the VAM-6 discovery coin (but most likely a much later die stage)?

Sorry if these questions seem a little stupid. I'm more interested in the process of attribution then getting credit for DC. (I'll admit though, if these are qualifying breaks or there are listable attributes, I'll probably send it to Leroy.)

I believe all the die markers in these listings have caused me to lose focus on what makes a coin fit a classification. Sounds like I'm making excuses (and I guess I am).

In conclusion (fingers crossed here): The die markers are not necessary for a coin to fit the classification; however, when a coin has them, it provides confirmation that it does fit the classification (and possibly the same die pair).

So 6A/6B and 6C all fit the VAM-6 classification, but are different dies than the VAM-6 discovery coin? And they probably don't have some or many of those finer die markers (but again, they still fit the VAM-6 classification)?

Hoping I finally got that one straightened out. Please let me know if I still missed anything.

Finally, I know the 6C comment you mentioned and appreciate it, and I do understand how standards may have shifted over time.

On my coin, I'm certainly not seeing the same degree of shifted field, but it did catch the eye when rotating the coin. They're minor compared to your 6C, I agree. There are a few breaks in the lettering that may be worth consideration, though. A gouge in denticles, and even that brief collar clash was interesting enough to mention.

Thanks for your time and attention.
John

morganman
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:02 am

Re: Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by morganman » Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:49 am

This type of listing/vam/descriptions is what is confusing as hell and
certainly does not help us oldies and for sure confuses newbies & newer members

In many instances its all to Convoluted

Thanks for working to clarify v 6A B etc
:|

User avatar
LateDateMorganGuy
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:11 am

Re: Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by LateDateMorganGuy » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:33 pm

By the way, you have not said anything about the obverse. I assume it is a near date? It should be given the only known obverse die paired with this reverse die.

It is hard to tell if the die pair you have is the same as the coin used for the initial VAM-6 listing. But keep in mind that since it is being treated as a "die classification", since multiple die pairs exist, the listing could have been established based on several coins where the same base attributes were identified way back when.

This is the way I look at it. The "base attributes" are a near date, mint mark set high and tilted right, with doubling on the reverse left wreath.

If a coin matches these "base attributes", without considering anything else that might be on the coin, then it is a candidate to be called VAM-6. Hence "multiple die pairs may exist".

Not to complicate things, but the doubled left wreath is likely in the hub, and can be found on many, many reverse dies in this period, not just 1897. So most reverse dies, and hence coins will show this feature.

I am not sure what Leroy would call this coin if he were to see it.

User avatar
UncleGildy
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 am

Re: Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by UncleGildy » Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:38 pm

Thanks Morganman! I fear I’ve been learning some of the aspects that I already understood, and am relearning them here. I remember a cracks and crack patterns being misleading conversation. Too old or CRS, I don't know (or can't remember).

LateDateMorganGuy – Your response is great. It hits on exactly my question and a point I was trying to get at in the post above. Not meaning to sound snippy, but I did state that all the markers are there. (I implied base attributes too.) The previous post included the OBV LFCP if you’d like to see the date placement. You may be able to see a hint of some of the markers too.

The crazy thing that started this all, was the match of all of those “Non-Base Attribute” die markers and the crack pattern that didn't match the second LCFP cracks (which obviously are from 6A, which is a legitimate member of the VAM-6 die class).

In my original post I was soooo close to suggesting what you said about the wreath doubling being in the hub. This seems to be the same as the hub doubling I’ve seen in the letters (like the doubling of the diagonal in the ‘N’ in United). Leroy pointed that out to me on a past submission and I see it in arrow heads and wreath a lot now too. So, I agree with your conjecture on hub doubling. I suspect it’s on your 6C (different physical die pair), and very likely on all the other die classifications from that hub. See – I have been paying attention a little :)

So, in summary: yes – “Near Date and O Set High, Tilted Right”. I didn’t mention the wreath doubling in the context of base attribute before, because I wanted to avoid the delicate topic which you covered so well.

In summary 2: You wrote “If a coin matches these "base attributes", without considering anything else that might be on the coin, then it is a candidate to be called VAM-6. Hence "multiple die pairs may exist".” This is another way of saying what I was trying to communicate above. Thanks again for the help!

User avatar
UncleGildy
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 am

Re: Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by UncleGildy » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:47 am

UncleGildy wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:38 pm
The previous post included the OBV LFCP if you’d like to see the date placement.
Oops! While cleaning my pics folder, I see the OBV LFCP was not posted. It was ready and waiting in case someone asked, but no one did. Sorry for the mix-up on my part, and also for bringing the post back to the top of the discussion board. I felt obligated to post it after saying it was there.
97O_Obv_Gildy1k.jpg
97O_Obv_Gildy1k.jpg (258.21 KiB) Viewed 796 times

User avatar
TheYokel
Posts: 1552
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:23 am
Location: Death Valley (seriously)

Re: Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by TheYokel » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:40 pm

Date placement would definitely fall under 6.

Might be worth a trip just to let it be known it exists. Even if it isn't labeled as a new 6 sublisting directly, it would still be helpful to be photo'd and added to the collective knowledge base.

It's a completely different reverse progression, so might be helpful to be photo'd for future research if someone decides to hunt down the 6 series various progressions. Might toss it in your next bulk send...
"There is no E"...

Top 100: 27 -- Hot 50: 6 -- Top 50: 4 -- Elite 30: 2 -- K12: 2

User avatar
UncleGildy
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 am

Re: Die Markers / Class Question and "that 97O"

Post by UncleGildy » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:57 pm

TheYokel wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:40 pm
Might be worth a trip just to let it be known it exists. Even if it isn't labeled as a new 6 sublisting directly, it would still be helpful to be photo'd and added to the collective knowledge base.

It's a completely different reverse progression, so might be helpful to be photo'd for future research if someone decides to hunt down the 6 series various progressions. Might toss it in your next bulk send...
Thanks! Very helpful to hear that. I agree, there should be some value in that.

Post Reply