1897-O Beveled Denticles

[LateDateMorganGuy]

Having just concluded a die study of the 1897-O series, I found 18 different obverse and reverse dies each.

But what is interesting is that 6 of the 18 (one third) reverse dies have beveled denticles above ST or STA of STATES. So what is it, a hub thing, or the same tool in the same mint workers hands resulting in the same result?

[LateDateMorganGuy]

Here is the 6th reverse die.

[crabscrape]

I believe it is a Hub issue. Nice work BTW Alan. Also, it reminds me of another series the wide reeds that have similar bevel issue. The 1921 26A and 1928A.

[messydesk]

I'm thinking feed finger scrapes. They get shinier as the die ages, which is the opposite of what would happen if there were a shiny spot on the hub there.

[DHalladay]

Here's a shot of my MS61, which I've 'identified' as VAM 1. There is some beveling, but it's very minor:

1897-O 36834116 beveling.jpg (227.98 KiB) Viewed 7550 times

[raynat3]

I was thinking something like feed finger also as they are in the same general location, above wings, as feed finger gouges. It is interesting and makes you wonder why the ones on the 97-O's and the wide reed 21's are mostly confined to a small edge near denticles and the typical feed finger gouges extend much further into the field.

Could it have to do anything with the collar itself? I do not recall if the collars opened slightly as each coin was ejected after strike.

[vampicker]

You know me, I'll opt for the same hands doing the same work tending to produce similar results. I'll guess these all show up during the production run. I think this is from polishing used dies a little too much rather than feeder finger damage, but such damage is something they might try polishing out. Have you found EDS examples with the same beveling?

[LateDateMorganGuy]

I think JB may be correct. I checked the DMPL example of the VAM-8, and there is no hint of the beveled denticles. I do think they get stronger with die wear, lending credence to the feeder finger theory.

On another "hub" thing issue, 15 out of the 18 reverse dies show the doubled middle leaves on the left leaf wreath clusters (2nd and 3rd from top) and right wreath cluster (across from AR), or some combination as shown below.

[LateDateMorganGuy]

JR, I do not see many MDS polishing episodes in the 1897-O series that might cause this.

[DHalladay]

Speaking of VAM 1... and I mean VAM 1s in all dates, not just 1921... might scribbles be a way to identify coins that are really individual VAMs, rather than just lump them all into a generic VAM 1 basket?

I bring this up because as a 1921-P guy I'm constantly noticing that scribbles and/or die polishing often appears in the 'scribbles areas' on other dates and mint marks. For example, here's a shot I just took of my 1897-O whose beveled denticles photo I posted in this thread:

scribbles small.jpg (206.69 KiB) Viewed 7537 times

Pretty dramatic, huh? If this coin were a 1921-P it would have its own VAM number in a flash.

J.R., J.B., what do you think? Lock up the '21-P Nut and throw away the key, or is he on to something?

[CascadeChris]

Dennis. Good question that I've been curious about for a while..

[vampicker]

For better or worse we'll end up with far more Die 1, Die 2, Die xx and so on. Not everyone thinks this is healthy for the future of this field.

[LateDateMorganGuy]

Yeah, JR got back to you before I did.

Your coin matches the 4th photo in my original post. I have it listed as VNA-3, but have notes that it easily could fit into VAM-1. Keep in mind that I am trying to ID different die pairs, not just try and squeeze die pairs into VAM numbers.

But past protocol by LVA indicates that he calls pre-1921 Morgans by die pair number when they fit into certain VAM Classifications.

As you know many, many 1921 Morgans can only be ID'd by scribbles. Pre-1921 Morgans can be ID'd by other markers. No need for "scribbles" on pre-1921 Morgans IMHO.

But oh, I am not JB or JR, so disregard this post

[messydesk]

Speaking of VAM 1... and I mean VAM 1s in all dates, not just 1921... might scribbles be a way to identify coins that are really individual VAMs, rather than just lump them all into a generic VAM 1 basket?

I bring this up because as a 1921-P guy I'm constantly noticing that scribbles and/or die polishing often appears in the 'scribbles areas' on other dates and mint marks. For example, here's a shot I just took of my 1897-O whose beveled denticles photo I posted in this thread:

The person most experienced with your quandary is likely @weth, with his 83 die study. He has many die pairs that are totally boring, plane Jane, VAM 1, but has differentiated between them within the context of his study, even if Leroy declined to list them as individual "normal" die pairs. This sort of differentiation can really only be effective within the context of a die study, since VAM 1s (and other listings like it) are specified as "normal" dies, making them a classification, rather than a specification of a specific die pair. Knowing the individual dies is also useful for mapping out die usage and emission sequences. One key difference between the 21 scribbles and the lines seen on the 97-O is that the 21 scribbles seem to be deliberately added to a spot on the die, while the lines on the 97-O (and others) are a result of die preparation, and of lower priority to mention, even if unique to a die.

J.R., J.B., what do you think? Lock up the '21-P Nut and throw away the key, or is he on to something?

Oh, I think that all the time. Note the fine line between saying "on to something" and "on something."

[LateDateMorganGuy]

By the way, note that in Dennis' coin, the beveled denticles are very slight. In my VNA-3 photo (4th from the top) which matches his coin, they are more pronounced. But the coin I photo'd is a later die state with the cracks at STA. This tends to support the idea that the beveled denticles got more pronounced with die wear/usage.

[Mhomei]

The beveling also occurs in the 81 O series
There is a list of them on one of the working pages