1923 D VAM 1X2

[bjsilverfox]

I recently picked up a 1923 D VAM 1X2 and have a question about the statement attributed to Leroy in the Comments:
"1. LVA letter Aug 12 2013. VAM 1X2 occurs before 1X1-made note of that in description." Is this a correct statement? It seems to me this comment should read VAM 1X2 occurs after 1X1.

[messydesk]

Probably not. I imagine someone sent him the VAM 1X2 in 2010 because of the break above the 1 that wasn't mentioned on the VAM 1X1 because of the larger break by IN, causing him to list that break separately. Three years later, someone realized that the break above the 1 was there before the one by IN and brought it to Leroy's attention, causing him to note that VAM 1X2 came first.

This is one reason that going forward, all attempts to split a listing into two or more must be accompanied by enough coins or clear photographic evidence to prove that it is warranted and correct.

[bjsilverfox]

Probably not. I imagine someone sent him the VAM 1X2 in 2010 because of the break above the 1 that wasn't mentioned on the VAM 1X1 because of the larger break by IN, causing him to list that break separately. Three years later, someone realized that the break above the 1 was there before the one by IN and brought it to Leroy's attention, causing him to note that VAM 1X2 came first.

This is one reason that going forward, all attempts to split a listing into two or more must be accompanied by enough coins or clear photographic evidence to prove that it is warranted and correct.

Looking at my coin and the additional pictures for VAM 1X2 there is a displaced field break from the rim near IN through LIB of LIBERTY to the upper rim. An additional break at ER and a third break through the T appear to have displaced fields as well. Do you think these field breaks should be included in the 1X2 description to differentiate it from the 1X1?

[messydesk]

Probably not. I imagine someone sent him the VAM 1X2 in 2010 because of the break above the 1 that wasn't mentioned on the VAM 1X1 because of the larger break by IN, causing him to list that break separately. Three years later, someone realized that the break above the 1 was there before the one by IN and brought it to Leroy's attention, causing him to note that VAM 1X2 came first.

This is one reason that going forward, all attempts to split a listing into two or more must be accompanied by enough coins or clear photographic evidence to prove that it is warranted and correct.

Looking at my coin and the additional pictures for VAM 1X2 there is a displaced field break from the rim near IN through LIB of LIBERTY to the upper rim. An additional break at ER and a third break through the T appear to have displaced fields as well. Do you think these field breaks should be included in the 1X2 description to differentiate it from the 1X1?

This will end up being David Close's call, but my recommendation would be to establish the difference between the two first, then describe the features of each. Actual coins of both stages will be required for this.