Guess the 1878 VAM......I sure do love it when NGC misses the PL designation

VamCollector

They missed something else as well Any guesses to the grade and VAM? (and yes....I know what it is)

nesvt

VAM 32?

Not sure about the grade with the mark on her cheek.... MS63 PL?

robertpr

I doubt they "missed" the VAM, variety designation costs extra and the submittor probably didn't know/care they had a VAM or did know and care but just were too cheap to pony up the extra cash.

jdsinva

Definite v32!

VamCollector

<< <i>I doubt they "missed" the VAM, variety designation costs extra and the submittor probably didn't know/care they had a VAM or did know and care but just were too cheap to pony up the extra cash. >>



No, I wasn't expecting the VAM # but in a PCGS holder it would have been designated as a "weak" 7/8.

nesvt

... and I forgot to say

Very nice!

VamCollector

<< <i>... and I forgot to say

Very nice! >>



Thanks...yes its a Vam 32 in an NGC 64 (no PL) holder...go figure.

morgannut2

You are correct and NGC should fix the policy--PCGS at least gives you a "weak" general designation------for free.

coindeuce

Not necessarily true MorganNut. I bought a PCGS MS-64 DMPL '78 7/8 TF designated Strong at a recent signature auction. Problem is , it is a VAM 32 and should have been designated 7/8 Weak. But no problem, since they redesignated properly because of their mistake, and offered me a fat rebate based on market value difference. A bit of a twist on the thread, but the point is that just because PCGS makes the distinction between Strong and Weak 7/8 doesn't mean that they always get it right either.






edited to add "either".

Myqqy

Nice looking morgan- perhaps they gave a half point bump to a 64, and dropped the PL designation as the trade off?

Wolf359

What a great pickup. VAM-32 always seems to come proof-like, doesn't it?

messydesk

<< <i>What a great pickup. VAM-32 always seems to come proof-like, doesn't it? >>

Sure does, and I wish one would come to me.