VAM: Design Varieties vs Die Varieties vs Die States. Are the die state coins legitimate varieties?
CalGold
Posts: 2,608 ✭✭
The Feb 13 Coin Dealer Newsletter Monthly Supplement featured VAMs. These seem to be getting more attention and some are bringing premiums, including some that are not really varieties at all in any conventional sense but are only die state coins.
Here is what I mean. In cataloging VAMs, Van Allen and Mallis created a mixed metaphor that continues to prevail. Within the concept of VAMs there is a mixing of design varieties or types, die varieties, and die states.
Design Varieties: I would define these as intentional differences in the details of devices. Examples would be the major "types" of Morgan dollars such as the 1878 8 tail feathers, the 1878 7 tail feathers (usually referred to as the Reverse of 1878), the "round breast" reverse (usually referred to by the misnomer Reverse of 1879 even though it was introduced in 1878), the C-4 reverse introduced in 1900, and the 1921 design changes.
Most of these "major" type varieties were minted in large numbers, and the only ones that carry a premium are the Reverse of 1879 when found on mint state 1878 coins and the reverse of 1878 when found on mint state 1879-s and 1880/79-cc coins. The reverse of 1878 coins might better be called die varieties than design varieties since the mint used left over hubs from 1878 instead of the new Rev of 1879 design hub.
So far as I can tell there are no premiums associated with non-C4 reverses in early 20th century Morgans apart from a preference for "better struck" breast feathers, even though a well struck C-4 might have weaker feathers than an average struck non-C-4.
But there are also some minor design variations such as the 1878 "long nock" or B1varieties that are found on 1878 cc's and more rarely on the 1878-s coins. The 1878-s carries a large premium. An example of the tiniest variation carrying the largest premium.
Die Varieties: These include over-dates, RPMs, double dies and the like. Some carry big premiums (eg. 1887/6 and 1887/6-o). Some don't (eg. the 1880-cc 8 over 7). At least one, the 79-cc capped mint mark, actually reduces the value of the coin. Go figure.
Die States: These are things such as clashed dies and die breaks. These are commonly found on Morgans and other coins. Most do not carry any premiums and are not cataloged. However, some die breaks have been categorized as VAMs and command big money like the 1888-o "scar face." Others include the O mint clashed E on reverse. There are a host of other minor die break items that seem to command attention and money. In most other series these would be considered "novelties" or "cool die breaks" at best. But it seems people are paying significant premiums for some of these. I don't get it.
Here is another example. On the B2-f reverse the feathers in the eagle's wings are polished out, probably in an attempt to repair clash marks. Should it be worth more or less than other varieties? On the one hand it is different, on the other hand it shows less feather detail, albeit due to die polishing rather than strike weakness. Go figure.
CG
Here is what I mean. In cataloging VAMs, Van Allen and Mallis created a mixed metaphor that continues to prevail. Within the concept of VAMs there is a mixing of design varieties or types, die varieties, and die states.
Design Varieties: I would define these as intentional differences in the details of devices. Examples would be the major "types" of Morgan dollars such as the 1878 8 tail feathers, the 1878 7 tail feathers (usually referred to as the Reverse of 1878), the "round breast" reverse (usually referred to by the misnomer Reverse of 1879 even though it was introduced in 1878), the C-4 reverse introduced in 1900, and the 1921 design changes.
Most of these "major" type varieties were minted in large numbers, and the only ones that carry a premium are the Reverse of 1879 when found on mint state 1878 coins and the reverse of 1878 when found on mint state 1879-s and 1880/79-cc coins. The reverse of 1878 coins might better be called die varieties than design varieties since the mint used left over hubs from 1878 instead of the new Rev of 1879 design hub.
So far as I can tell there are no premiums associated with non-C4 reverses in early 20th century Morgans apart from a preference for "better struck" breast feathers, even though a well struck C-4 might have weaker feathers than an average struck non-C-4.
But there are also some minor design variations such as the 1878 "long nock" or B1varieties that are found on 1878 cc's and more rarely on the 1878-s coins. The 1878-s carries a large premium. An example of the tiniest variation carrying the largest premium.
Die Varieties: These include over-dates, RPMs, double dies and the like. Some carry big premiums (eg. 1887/6 and 1887/6-o). Some don't (eg. the 1880-cc 8 over 7). At least one, the 79-cc capped mint mark, actually reduces the value of the coin. Go figure.
Die States: These are things such as clashed dies and die breaks. These are commonly found on Morgans and other coins. Most do not carry any premiums and are not cataloged. However, some die breaks have been categorized as VAMs and command big money like the 1888-o "scar face." Others include the O mint clashed E on reverse. There are a host of other minor die break items that seem to command attention and money. In most other series these would be considered "novelties" or "cool die breaks" at best. But it seems people are paying significant premiums for some of these. I don't get it.
Here is another example. On the B2-f reverse the feathers in the eagle's wings are polished out, probably in an attempt to repair clash marks. Should it be worth more or less than other varieties? On the one hand it is different, on the other hand it shows less feather detail, albeit due to die polishing rather than strike weakness. Go figure.
CG
0
Comments
While I tend to agree most die states don't deserve much of a premium (unless it's a rare early die state) I don't discount the importance of tracking the life of a die. In less studied series of coins, it is a tremendous help in piecing together a "timeline" and differentiating between extremely similar hubbed dies.
Many people seem to dislike clashes, die cracks & cuds since the coins are essentially struck from a degrading die. Who doesn't want perfection? On the other hand, I find them extremely interesting and what's not to love about early large cents, for example, with the stars joined by cracks?
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
As one who appreciates major Morgan VAMs, I tend to glaze over and walk away on the subject of die state coins. Die states are a function of the natural wear and tear that occurs to dies, unlike VAMs (well, most of them) which resulted from mistakes made during the making of the dies.
I do, however, like the 1888-O VAM 1A, which is the early die state of what became the VAM 1B "Scar Face"... which itself is only a terminal die state coin. Mut since it's THE most recognizable VAM that exists, I like it. And becasue I like it so much, the VAM 1A early die state also has meaning and interest to me.
But that's about it.
1) Die Breaks (whisker jaw)
2) Doubled/Trippled dies (Doubled motto)
3) Die Gouges (chin bar)
4) Misc, (missing rays..etc.)
I've found that the Die breaks (not cracks) are bringing premium $. A "break" is raised metal on top of the surface, whereas a crack looks like a hairline under the metal....
Here's a whisker jaw, Extra wing and 2 extra hairs that I just sent to NGC...... I'd be happy to try to answer any questions on Peace $, I've been taking with David Close for a few months now (author of the top 50 varities book).....
Here's a closeup of the wing. I like the breaks myself....
Coins like these number less than 100 (slabbed) each... when Vam's become increasingly popular, you won't be able to find these at all... Prices will go up and those holding the nice coins will do very well......
What is a "set"?
Some people collect type sets, and an 1881-s Morgan is just as good as an 1893-s Morgan, so theoretically a pure "set collector" who only want a single Morgan dollar wouldn't pay more for the 1893-s Morgan than the 1881-s Morgan.
Some people collect Morgans by date. IIRC, the "mintmark" was itself considered as a "minor variation", way back when.
Some (most) collect Morgans by date and mint.
Some collect coins (not just Morgans) by die varieties. So the subtle things (1878-s long nock) becomes desirable. The prices for those varieties go up, way up, when it has been identified as rare.
The market for VAM collectors is like the market for the nicely toned coins. Why would one pay more for a coin that's been "tarnished"?
For example. Here's the Spring 2004 update to the 1879s Reverse of 1878 Morgan dollar series. There are several VAM's in this series that are unknown in uncirculated grades. For example, if you find a VAM 34B in UNC, I am certain that it will sell for good money. What's "good money"? Well, *I* will be happy to pay you $1000 for an MS63, or $2500 for an MS64. It's also likely that such a coin will sell for higher, since it's been identified as rare, and a bunch of us have been looking for years for them. Not nearly as long as the large cent folks or the colonial collector, so there are plenty of opportunities for a roll of BU VAM 34B to emerge from someone's safe deposit box, but if you find one, I'd surely like to buy it.
As to B2f being different from other varieties, and does that mean it's worth more? It depends on whether it's "interesting" or not, and to how many people is that feature "interesting", and are people willing to pay more for the "interest factor"?
Let me give you another example.
Here are some slides I made for a presenation at 2004 Baltimore SSDC meeting.
Slide 2 shows where the die varieties come from, and some may be hub breaks (multiple die) or die-specific variations.
Slide 6 shows a mystery that I am trying to work out. There are some 1878-p and 1878s Morgans that the serif in "r" is broken, but broken in a funny way. There's a little midget serif that remains.
The question that I asked was is this a "repunched die or intermediate broken hub state"? That is, was this just a die that was made while the serif in r was flaking off? So the "before" picture for the hub is a "full r", the "after" picture for the hub is a "partially broken r".
Or, is the serif repunched, and hence die specific? That is, did someone at the mint realize that the broken r's doesn't look good, and the motto became "In God we tiust". so they tried to punch in a serif on the die?
Several people think that it's just an intermediate hub state. I think it *may* be repunched. So I am looking for an 1878p 7TF Morgan with the "funny looking broken r". to try to prove/disprove one theory or another. So I am looking for such a coin, and would be inclined to pay a small premium if it will help me find such a coin. In this case, these coins are interesting to me, and if it spurs interest, others start looking for the same coins, and prices go up.... That's how price trends happen.
Which I sent into Leroy Van allen for certification.
error. Rarity also factors in. If memory serves, there are only 33 known 1891 VAM-2A "mustache" coins, yet there are many more
collectors than that who want one. So it becomes a supply and demand issue. Even a F12 coin goes for $500 plus. There are more
Scarface coins, but almost all the known coins are MS (did the Mint even release them???) and pricing starts around $2,000 or so. Got
milk?
If that breaks your budget who can find a ScarFace, a Moustache Coin, or a Donkey Tail ($300 plus) that hasn't been attributed???
Very, very tough.
The 1921-D morgans have an incredible number of LARGE die breaks and even full cuds can be found (see below). They are rapidly
increasing in price, and all are commanding large premiums as collectors latch on to them.
Free Trial
In the pictures of slide 6 it looks like the right hand pictures are later die states of the left hand pictures after some polishing of the dies has removed the rough areas around the letters.
The top pictures look to me like they came from a die made from a hub with the serif of the r mostly broken away.
The lower pictures look like a coin made from a die that was hubbed with two different hubs. The first hubbing was done with a normal hub that had the serif present. But this first hubbing was not sufficient to bring the serif up fully (Hence the need for the second hubbing) so the serif is small and weaker than it should be. After the die was annealed and returned to the hubbing press it was mated up with the hub with the broken serif r. So the body of the r was fully formed after the second hubbing but the serif only received the addition of the features seen in the top left picture. The outline above the existing weak serif and the rough partial area below it. Then later some polishing was done to the die removing the upper outlines (like it did in the upper right photo) and weaken in the area under the serif to just some lumps (again like in the upper right photo).
So the pictures do represent two different dies, and the lower one is actually a doubled die using two different hubs.
<< <i>Davewang202,
In the pictures of slide 6 it looks like the right hand pictures are later die states of the left hand pictures after some polishing of the dies has removed the rough areas around the letters. >>
Could be. I haven't looked hard enough for die markers to prove or disprove those two on the bottom were or were not simply EDS/LDS of each other.
<< <i>The top pictures look to me like they came from a die made from a hub with the serif of the r mostly broken away.
The lower pictures look like a coin made from a die that was hubbed with two different hubs. The first hubbing was done with a normal hub that had the serif present. But this first hubbing was not sufficient to bring the serif up fully (Hence the need for the second hubbing) so the serif is small and weaker than it should be. After the die was annealed and returned to the hubbing press it was mated up with the hub with the broken serif r. So the body of the r was fully formed after the second hubbing but the serif only received the addition of the features seen in the top left picture. The outline above the existing weak serif and the rough partial area below it. Then later some polishing was done to the die removing the upper outlines (like it did in the upper right photo) and weaken in the area under the serif to just some lumps (again like in the upper right photo).
So the pictures do represent two different dies, and the lower one is actually a doubled die using two different hubs. >>
Double hubbed? That's yet another theory.... There are at least two dies with the mini serif. The two pictures on slide 6 I showed are from 1878s Morgans, and as you pointed out, they *could* be simply EDS/LDS of each other. However, there are a few 1878p Morgans with similar looking mini serifs. Mr Van Allen believes that it's just part of the "broken r" sequence, as the serif flakes off from the hub and some some (at least one) such die made it to San Francisco, while some (at least one) stayed at the philly mint.
Anyways, I'm still looking for such a coin from the philly mint. Larry Briggs showed me his stash at the Baltimore show, but they're mostly ~XF coins. I'd like to see if I can find some AU/BU coins to take some pictures and stare at them for a while.