A new look at ‘21-D JOH-3

General discussion board about VAMs, but no buy/sell offers
Post Reply
DHalladay
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 4:38 pm
Location: Boise, ID area

A new look at ‘21-D JOH-3

Post by DHalladay » Thu Jul 21, 2022 6:50 pm

39640388 LFCP obv small.jpg
39640388 LFCP obv small.jpg (335.2 KiB) Viewed 764 times
39640388 LFCP rev small.jpg
39640388 LFCP rev small.jpg (320.04 KiB) Viewed 764 times



It was 21 years ago that Rob Joyce discovered a crazy variety that is jammed with features, which he listed as JOH-3 in his 2003 book, "Fun With 1921". (JO stands for Joyce and H stands for Jim Hart, his good friend and collaborator who passed away that same year).

In his introduction to the 14 JOH varieties in the book, Joyce said, “The following coins are additional unique varieties that were not quite significant enough to warrant a VAM assignment.” A bit further down he added, “By definition, the features of a JOH coin are less pronounced than coins that were assigned a VAM number.”

Publication in 2008 of the “1921 Scribbles Attribution Guide” by Leroy Van Allen and Crae Morton introduced the VAM community to a new feature that was “significant enough”, but even without scribbles those two statements strike me as being a million percent wrong in regard to JOH-3. This variety still doesn't have a VAM number – an omission I will submit for review in coming weeks.

As a date, 1921-D Morgans are famous for die cracks. It is their trademark. For dozens of 1921-D VAMs, cracks are the main pickup point. They are so endemic throughout the date that perhaps the only thing scarcer than a 1921-D that doesn't have at least one crack is a 1921-D that is unquestionably prooflike.

JOH-3 is awash with multiple features that some VAMs have just one of: long streaming die cracks; doubled (tripled?) digits; feed finger gouges; crack chips; gouges; displaced field breaks (tiny ones); polishing lines; and even one of the mysterious dots that show up from time to time on Morgans. JOH-3 has them all. And yes, it has scribbles too.

“Not quite significant enough”? Features that are “less pronounced”?

HA!
Last edited by DHalladay on Tue Sep 20, 2022 3:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
When in doubt... don't.

DHalladay
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 4:38 pm
Location: Boise, ID area

Re: A new look at ‘21-D JOH-3

Post by DHalladay » Thu Jul 21, 2022 6:51 pm

39640388 3-stack.jpg
39640388 3-stack.jpg (365.87 KiB) Viewed 763 times
39640388 dot P.jpg
39640388 dot P.jpg (214.01 KiB) Viewed 763 times
39640388 FFs.jpg
39640388 FFs.jpg (322.67 KiB) Viewed 763 times
39640388 stack polish lines.jpg
39640388 stack polish lines.jpg (254.59 KiB) Viewed 763 times
39640388 lines in bow small.jpg
39640388 lines in bow small.jpg (266.56 KiB) Viewed 763 times
When in doubt... don't.

DHalladay
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 4:38 pm
Location: Boise, ID area

Re: A new look at ‘21-D JOH-3

Post by DHalladay » Thu Jul 21, 2022 6:52 pm

39640388 lines in bolls small.jpg
39640388 lines in bolls small.jpg (278.46 KiB) Viewed 763 times
39640388 wing gouge small.jpg
39640388 wing gouge small.jpg (395.38 KiB) Viewed 763 times
39640388 scribbles 1 small.jpg
39640388 scribbles 1 small.jpg (336.54 KiB) Viewed 763 times
39640388 scribbles 1 close.jpg
39640388 scribbles 1 close.jpg (274.52 KiB) Viewed 763 times
39640388 scribbles 2 small.jpg
39640388 scribbles 2 small.jpg (352.82 KiB) Viewed 763 times
When in doubt... don't.

fogie
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 9:45 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: A new look at ‘21-D JOH-3

Post by fogie » Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:22 pm

Evolution exists...

Tekkie1
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 1:07 am

Re: A new look at ‘21-D JOH-3

Post by Tekkie1 » Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:55 pm

A hell of " A Lot" going on with variety!
Great Pics as always Dennis.

User avatar
bob259
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:12 pm

Re: A new look at ‘21-D JOH-3

Post by bob259 » Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:38 pm

I often wonder about the JOH-21 & 22. The JOH-22 has more going on than the JOH-21 but both should have a VAM number since all Morgans are VAMs - correct? I'm going to take some pictures of the 21 & 22 and see if we can identify anything significant to give it a VAM number other than a VAM 1. I notice on the VAM 1 page it does show some scribbles. Are those identifyable as a different VAM? Also Vam 1 indicates multiple die pairs. At some point I'm going to send my 21 & 22 into messydesk for attribution. It seems that all JOH coins should have a VAM number as again I say all Morgans are suppose to be VAMs. The JOH coins should be cleared up even if they are only VAM 1.

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 3495
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: A new look at ‘21-D JOH-3

Post by messydesk » Sat Jul 23, 2022 5:43 pm

bob259 wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:38 pm
I often wonder about the JOH-21 & 22. The JOH-22 has more going on than the JOH-21 but both should have a VAM number since all Morgans are VAMs - correct? I'm going to take some pictures of the 21 & 22 and see if we can identify anything significant to give it a VAM number other than a VAM 1. I notice on the VAM 1 page it does show some scribbles. Are those identifyable as a different VAM? Also Vam 1 indicates multiple die pairs. At some point I'm going to send my 21 & 22 into messydesk for attribution. It seems that all JOH coins should have a VAM number as again I say all Morgans are suppose to be VAMs. The JOH coins should be cleared up even if they are only VAM 1.
With scribbles, it wouldn't be called VAM 1. Don't use the photos on the VAM 1 page to attribute a VAM 1. There are no official pictures for VAM 1.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

User avatar
bob259
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:12 pm

Re: A new look at ‘21-D JOH-3

Post by bob259 » Sun Jul 24, 2022 3:47 pm

messydesk wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 5:43 pm
bob259 wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:38 pm
I often wonder about the JOH-21 & 22. The JOH-22 has more going on than the JOH-21 but both should have a VAM number since all Morgans are VAMs - correct? The JOH coins should be cleared up even if they are only VAM 1.
With scribbles, it wouldn't be called VAM 1. Don't use the photos on the VAM 1 page to attribute a VAM 1. There are no official pictures for VAM 1.
So, since the VAM 1 page says there are different die pairs, then we have different VAMs for coins marked JOH-21 & 22. I guess maybe JOH-21 & 22 don't relate to VAM 1 and each needs to be attributed by itself since the weak "n" and die break above "M" aren't enough for a separate VAM. Bottom line, I need to send them in and see what you come up with. Then the question will be if all marked JOH-21 & 22 will be the same VAM respectively.

Post Reply