ANACS attribution woes

messydesk

I was cruising for 1878 Morgans on eBay last week and bought an ANACS-attributed 1878 VAM 116. Pretty tough coin. I couldn't tell from the pictures that it was attributed correctly, so I put my trvst in ANACS and bought it. I picked up the coin today and it turns out to be a VAM 199.2, which isn't as rare. I spoke to someone at ANACS who told me to send it back to Traci and they'd take care of everything. Stay tuned for how this turns out.

DennisH

John:

May the VAM Force be with you... because VAM 116 Is a LOT tougher than 199.2.

1921obsession

So how would you sort out relative values in a situation where there's very little previous-sales data?

Coxe

I have one wrong one from PCGS and a couple form NGC too. They all do it. But this is something we shoudl be able to rely on the TPG to get right. That is part of why they are there and why they offer the service.

Was the coin in an older holder? The 199.2 was not designated until 1999 and probably not differentiated from the 116 by ANACS until 2000. It also may have been reholdered or just plain wrong.

Cuts both ways too. I got a 78-S long nock that was atributed as a common variety before.

Cladiator

Only trust your own attributions. Words to live by in any aspect of variety collecting. TPG attributions for the most part are a joke.

ABC123

Good Eyes !

messydesk

<< <i>Was the coin in an older holder? The 199.2 was not designated until 1999 and probably not differentiated from the 116 by ANACS until 2000. It also may have been reholdered or just plain wrong. >>


Coin was in a new holder. The person I spoke with at ANACS said they holdered it in March this year. ANACS doesn't do blind reholders of old coins. Everything gets re-examined. The difference is subtle, but the documentation thereof is thorough enough that ANACS should have done it correctly. How ANACS handles this will determine if I get upset with them.

Wolf359

Both 116 and 199.2 have the same obverse and a somewhat subtle difference on the reverse, as
both appear polished away on the right side of the eagle next to the leg. The 199.2 is a
bit more, and I've always wondered if they aren't just die states.

messydesk

<< <i>Only trust your own attributions. Words to live by in any aspect of variety collecting. TPG attributions for the most part are a joke. >>


As Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." You have to know who does a good job with what. For Morgan dollars, I'd rank them (from top to bottom) SEGS, ANACS, PCGS, NGC, ICG.

koynekwest

I, too, have had lots of trouble with proper attribution with the "New" ANACS-to the extent that I won't use them any more.

VamGuy

<< <i>John: May the VAM Force be with you... because VAM 116 Is a LOT tougher than 199.2. >>




<< <i>Both 116 and 199.2 have the same obverse and a somewhat subtle difference on the reverse, as
both appear polished away on the right side of the eagle next to the leg. The 199.2 is a
bit more, and I've always wondered if they aren't just die states. >>



How does the VAM 140 fit into this group in terms of rarity and value? It has the same obverse as the 116 and 199.2, but with the broken "o" of the b2b reverse.

messydesk

The 140 is in between the two as far as rarity is concerned. Not an easy coin, but not a big rarity. There are actually two die pairs called VAM 140, with notably different reverse dies, although Leroy calls them both 140 for now, since they're from the same reverse hubs, with the "multiple dies exist" note that I really don't like and that will screw up my attribution software when I do it. I will probably refer to them as 140.1 and 140.2 when the time comes. I wish he would call one of them 147, instead, though, just to stay consistent with the "one die pair, one VAM" philosophy.