1903 O

ShamShield · Post by **ShamShield** » Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:23 pm

Is this a low O/O vam? Pics aren't great but I'll keep trying. I see what looks like pieces of a 2nd O towards the bottom of the left and right inside and a spike upper right outside but nothing lower left outside.

ShamShield · Post by **ShamShield** » Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:37 pm

More pics

UNCLE BINGO · Post by **UNCLE BINGO** » Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:17 am

So i got to ask you something and please don"t be offended .First off I don't have that coin yet .Its one of those years and mint marks I affectingly call a money coin . The obverse looks like it has been smoothed for lack of a better word . having bought a few eBay stinkers myself , I would just expect a few hits on the obverse. maybe its just the pictures but it looks a little off for the amount of " flat hair" I am seeing . I hate what people have done to them in the past . i think the coins deserve better ... but it is still cool BTW

ShamShield · Post by **ShamShield** » Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:09 am

I don't get offended. I never even considered that angle.....I'm going to compare it to another morgan and see if I can tell that as well. This is a better picture of the O....what would the hook be?

UNCLE BINGO · Post by **UNCLE BINGO** » Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:04 am

That is a tougher year for sure .. buying stuff RAW off the INTERNET is hazardous at times .. I should start a topic on here about Ebay stinkers just to raise awareness. I bought a 1884 s for really really cheep that I am not absolutely sure is even real. Flatter than a pancake , stripped of all life and luster , should have been the advertisement . If it was 38 bucks instead of 37 I think I would have been pissed LOL .Needless to say ill try better next time . maybe TPG in aAU grade will do to replace it . Live and learn I guess . I hope it works out for you man!

vampicker · Post by **vampicker** » Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:54 am

Hard hit on the bottom of the O mintmark, damaged outside the mint

keilg1 · Post by **keilg1** » Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:21 am

Agree wth @vampicker - the MM took a shot along the way (PMD).

Looks to be a bit high and perhaps slightly tilted left - more like VAM-7 than VAM-6. Can't rule out VAM-13 (but doesn't have the chip of 13A from what I can see) or VAM-16 or VAM-19 without more pictures of PUPs.

From the ones I've looked at (more in the hundreds than thousands, but more than just a few), the 'gunk' or trails in the IGWT letters is extremely prevalent in many coins minted after 1900, but certainly for 1902, 1903 and 1904... Part of the alure but not aspects I believe are listable as VAM worthy. Openly deferring my humble thoughts to those much more experienced (and official).

The 03-O VAM-22 I snagged is one example: http://www.vamworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6541

Agree the FCPs make the coin look a bit polished/dipped but commenting on that with any certaintly is well above my pay grade.

UNCLE BINGO · Post by **UNCLE BINGO** » Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:53 pm

@k@keilg1 Very sweet coin!!! ,,,, Yes I agree OMG Beats Wow ,, No offensive to any toothed squirrels out there. I did notice a E bay auction that was influenced by your post . Its not a 22 that I can see even with junk pictures . probably PMD fun in the wing gap ,or a not so easily findable die chip in the wing gap ..... not sure it may need to be poked with a stick

At least the guy selling it says its cleaned up front .I hate how much this year is for questionable stuff .

https://www.ebay.com/itm/394350610277

VAMWorld 2.0

1903 O

1903 O

Re: 1903 O

Re: 1903 O

Re: 1903 O

Re: 1903 O

Re: 1903 O

Re: 1903 O

Re: 1903 O