1885-O vams 9 & 11, die marriage?

boston

I believe the obverse is the III2/8 (Doubled 885), VAM 9, and the reverse appears to be the C3c (High O), VAM 11.

There wasn't anything in the updates for this marriage.

Are my obv/rev identifications correct? If so, is this a candidate for Leroy to review? After all, the
1885-O doesn't have many die variations to begin with.

Thanks. I'm going to try to get additional pics of this coin to post, since it does have nice rainbow (end rol) toning and is in PCGS MS65 holder.

Bob

MAD4MORGANS

Take a look at the Mint Mark Placement chart on page 116 of the VAM Encyclopedia.

I used a straight edge across the bottom of the wreath on your photo and compared the top of your O mint mark against that "generalized" mint mark measurement criteria and the top of the "O" on your coin appears to fall in the "normal" position as described in the illustration.

But then I used the same method on the images in the VAM Encyclopedia against the 1885 VAM-11 "High O" , the VAM-8 "O Shifted Right, and the VAM-12"O/O left" and yours looks like a "High O" as compared to those photos to me.

I didn't see any mention of a new die combination as your describe in the VAM Encyclopedia, the March 2005 Update attribution guide, or the VAM Updates at the Ashmore website.

I would recommend you take a few more photos of the coin and e-mail your images to Leroy to see what he says.

boston

MAD4MORGANS

Thanks,

When doing a comparison to the "generalized" chart, it does look normal.

I had looked at a number of mint mark placements in auction archives and the mint mark is high compared to those.
It was a surprise just to find the double date. Had the coin for over 2 years.

Coxe

Bob,

When you were looking through past auction images, did you find others with that obverse but with the "normal" mint mark position? It is just as possible that the mistake is in the VAM listing itself as it is that it is an unknown die marriage.

BTW, that's a neat VAM. Those are some shifted 8s.