Can a Morgan expert explain the variety known as the 1879-cc capped die please?

Realone

Is it anything special. PCGS has it cheaper than a generic 1879-cc?
TIA

jabba

There are a lot of cap die vams since CC are low numbers to begin with I believe quite a lot of the total production where cap CC from that die set.

Hallco

Here is a brief description from National Silver Dollar Round Table archives, and picture of Clear vs Capped. Mr Albrecht wrote the following article about the subject in 2012:

The 1879-CC Vam 3 “Capped Die” Silver Dollar

by: Leonard Albrecht – Authenticator

The 1879-CC Vam 3 “Capped Die” Variety silver dollar is one of the more interesting Morgan Dollar varieties, yet a lack of understanding of it has long caused it to sell at a substantial discount.

In late 1878 or early 1879 a third reverse (7 TF, rounded breast) die was punched with a small mint mark like that used in 1878. Before the die was used, however, a decision was made to change the style of the mint marks on the Morgan Dollars to that of the virtually discontinued Trade Dollar. Consequently the die was repunched with the larger CC punch.

Because the larger punch was applied too low, the tops of the small CC’s remained visible atop the larger ones looking like hats or caps, hence the original nickname, “Capped Die.”

The Mint engraver tried to hide the original CC’s by tapping around the mind mark with a blank punch. Later, after the die had been used for a while, a press operator at the Carson City Mint further damaged the mint mark area to obliterate the extra CC. This damage to the mint mark area has caused many people to unnecessarily doubt the authenticity of one of the most unusual Morgan Dollar varieties.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

davids5104

@Realone said:
Thank you, pcgs has it cheaper than generic, are they correct?

I am not an expert but doing some searches and it looks as though there is not a huge premium for the variety. It also appears quite available on ebay

messydesk

I'm reading the explanation above with arched brow.

1. There is no such thing as a "CC" punch. It is a single C punch applied twice. A CC punch would be much more difficult to sink into the die due to the doubled surface area of a single C.
2. If you look at early die stages of this reverse die in high grade, the mint mark is still a mess. Nobody at Carson would have attempted to make a repair to a die like this, and there is no sign of other nasty looking Morgan dies having been touched up there. Those shenanigans were left to their contemporaries in San Francisco.
3. The lumpy bits around the mint mark appear to be artifacts of a pitted die. You can also see this on the G in God on this reverse.
4. It is possible that two small Cs were punched on the die first, as there are 1880-CC reverses with small Cs and the reverse of '79 (a.k.a, 3rd reverse, SAF, round breast). The existence of such coins shows that there was no compelling reason to change a small mint mark to a large one
5. The Philadelphia mint was adept at effacing mint marks at this time if necessary, as is demonstrated on the 1875-S/CC.

What I'm guessing happened was that when the small Cs were punched, a weak spot in the die was exposed, leaving pitting around the mint mark, and the small mint mark didn't show up well, probably looking like two small blobs. A decision was then made to see if using the large mint mark would make it more legible, and while it was still a mess, it was sufficient for what, at the end of the day, was a rather meaningless outpost of a mint in the eyes of the QC people in Philadelphia. The "caps" on top of the Cs are probably part small C, part pitting. I'm not sure who corrupted "capped Cs" into "capped die," which has nothing to do with die caps. Francis Klaes makes no mention of the variety in his 1962 monograph at all, and Leroy Van Allen calls it Large CC/Small CC in his 1965 book.

The reason the VAM 3 traded at a discount to others was the baseless doubt raised about authenticity and the desire to have a better looking CC on a high dollar coin. While it is an interesting variety, it is one of the more common, if not the most common, 1879-CC variety.

CascadeChris

@messydesk said:
I'm reading the explanation above with arched brow.

...And curled lip

ifthevamzarockin

Looks like it's cheaper in grades up to MS-63 in 64&5 the price is higher. Condition availability?

AUandAG

As a CC collector that only wanted one or the other, I'd pick the clear CC. Just looks better.

bob

ifthevamzarockin

@AUandAG said:
As a CC collector that only wanted one or the other, I'd pick the clear CC. Just looks better.

bob

I think that is the big factor for overall sales.

CaptHenway

Could somebody please provide a link to where that explanation is published?

messydesk

@CascadeChris said:

@messydesk said:
I'm reading the explanation above with arched brow.

...And curled lip

More specifically, the "McKayla Maroney Is not Impressed" look.

Hallco

@messydesk said:
I'm reading the explanation above with arched brow.

1. There is no such thing as a "CC" punch. It is a single C punch applied twice. A CC punch would be much more difficult to sink into the die due to the doubled surface area of a single C.
2. If you look at early die stages of this reverse die in high grade, the mint mark is still a mess. Nobody at Carson would have attempted to make a repair to a die like this, and there is no sign of other nasty looking Morgan dies having been touched up there. Those shenanigans were left to their contemporaries in San Francisco.
3. The lumpy bits around the mint mark appear to be artifacts of a pitted die. You can also see this on the G in God on this reverse.
4. It is possible that two small Cs were punched on the die first, as there are 1880-CC reverses with small Cs and the reverse of '79 (a.k.a, 3rd reverse, SAF, round breast). The existence of such coins shows that there was no compelling reason to change a small mint mark to a large one
5. The Philadelphia mint was adept at effacing mint marks at this time if necessary, as is demonstrated on the 1875-S/CC.

What I'm guessing happened was that when the small Cs were punched, a weak spot in the die was exposed, leaving pitting around the mint mark, and the small mint mark didn't show up well, probably looking like two small blobs. A decision was then made to see if using the large mint mark would make it more legible, and while it was still a mess, it was sufficient for what, at the end of the day, was a rather meaningless outpost of a mint in the eyes of the QC people in Philadelphia. The "caps" on top of the Cs are probably part small C, part pitting. I'm not sure who corrupted "capped Cs" into "capped die," which has nothing to do with die caps. Francis Klaes makes no mention of the variety in his 1962 monograph at all, and Leroy Van Allen calls it Large CC/Small CC in his 1965 book.

The reason the VAM 3 traded at a discount to others was the baseless doubt raised about authenticity and the desire to have a better looking CC on a high dollar coin. While it is an interesting variety, it is one of the more common, if not the most common, 1879-CC variety.

Sorry @messydesk. I certainly did not mean to quote inaccurate information. I have heard others explain this in a similar way. Thank you for the clarification.

@CaptHenway

https://www.nationalsilverdollarroundtable.org/the-1879-cc-vam-3-“capped-die”-silver-dollar-2/

ricko

The pictures posted above certainly make it look like there was pitting on the die...Cheers, RickO

messydesk

@Hallco said:

@messydesk said:
I'm reading the explanation above with arched brow.

1. There is no such thing as a "CC" punch. It is a single C punch applied twice. A CC punch would be much more difficult to sink into the die due to the doubled surface area of a single C.
2. If you look at early die stages of this reverse die in high grade, the mint mark is still a mess. Nobody at Carson would have attempted to make a repair to a die like this, and there is no sign of other nasty looking Morgan dies having been touched up there. Those shenanigans were left to their contemporaries in San Francisco.
3. The lumpy bits around the mint mark appear to be artifacts of a pitted die. You can also see this on the G in God on this reverse.
4. It is possible that two small Cs were punched on the die first, as there are 1880-CC reverses with small Cs and the reverse of '79 (a.k.a, 3rd reverse, SAF, round breast). The existence of such coins shows that there was no compelling reason to change a small mint mark to a large one
5. The Philadelphia mint was adept at effacing mint marks at this time if necessary, as is demonstrated on the 1875-S/CC.

What I'm guessing happened was that when the small Cs were punched, a weak spot in the die was exposed, leaving pitting around the mint mark, and the small mint mark didn't show up well, probably looking like two small blobs. A decision was then made to see if using the large mint mark would make it more legible, and while it was still a mess, it was sufficient for what, at the end of the day, was a rather meaningless outpost of a mint in the eyes of the QC people in Philadelphia. The "caps" on top of the Cs are probably part small C, part pitting. I'm not sure who corrupted "capped Cs" into "capped die," which has nothing to do with die caps. Francis Klaes makes no mention of the variety in his 1962 monograph at all, and Leroy Van Allen calls it Large CC/Small CC in his 1965 book.

The reason the VAM 3 traded at a discount to others was the baseless doubt raised about authenticity and the desire to have a better looking CC on a high dollar coin. While it is an interesting variety, it is one of the more common, if not the most common, 1879-CC variety.

Sorry @messydesk. I certainly did not mean to quote inaccurate information. I have heard others explain this in a similar way. Thank you for the clarification.

@CaptHenway

https://www.nationalsilverdollarroundtable.org/the-1879-cc-vam-3-“capped-die”-silver-dollar-2/

No problem. I wasn't aware of the 2012 article, or if it had ever been debunked as inaccurate. I just think it's wrong for the reasons I cite above, and offer what I think is a more plausible explanation.