1888 O VAM help please, is it VAM-15 or not?

direwolf1972

I was poking through some coins that came in months ago and I hadnt had time to look over well. I ran into a LOT of doubling on the reverse but the mm looks weaker doubled than the photo at VW.com Spoke with another forum member about it in PM's and they said they would have sworn it was VAM-15 by looking at every photo except for the last one of the mint mark. The bottom of the mint mark does show a little bit of rolling under due to PMD when viewed at 200x but not sure the PMD would effect far enough into the field to hurt the doubling on the mint mark.

So thought I'd throw it up for general discussion and see what everyone thinks would cause as much doubling as shown without being able to easily see it on the mm also.

Images are taken at various angles with various lighting. My apologies I wanted to try to get the best shot I could of the feature I was looking at.

Couple shots of second A in America







Shot of the I in America



Pics of doubling in the wreath









Pic of R in America



Pic of mint mark... its the part that most confuses me since it doesnt show the clear doubling at the bottom as shown at VW

Yale68

Looks like a vam 15, except for the mintmark. So I vote no. Did you check the date position? Should be a near date position, with the "1" being two denticles from neck point (see vamworld).

On second look, I think you have a vam 9.

Raybob15239

Did you try posting this at VAMWorld? Vampicker at VAMWorld is ANACS attribution guy and might be able to help.

direwolf1972

<< <i>Looks like a vam 15, except for the mintmark. So I vote no. Did you check the date position? Should be a near date position, with the "1" being two denticles from neck point (see vamworld).

On second look, I think you have a vam 9. >>



PCGS says no on the VAM-9. Thats why I had forgotten to look it back over for so long. It was submitted in Feb. for VAM-9 attribution. Double checked the serial number against my submissions on membership page.

Not that PCGS is always right on variety attribution.

Yale68

But if you submitted it for vam 9 attribution, they would nevertheless slab it with the correct vam attribution, provided that it is a vam that PCGS attributes. This is further evidence that it is not a vam 15.

direwolf1972

<< <i>But if you submitted it for vam 9 attribution, they would nevertheless slab it with the correct vam attribution, provided that it is a vam that PCGS attributes. This is further evidence that it is not a vam 15. >>



Good point didnt think of that.

I'm not really sure whats going on. I had talked myself into VAM-9 and that PCGS called it wrong a bit ago but thinking I might send it into Leroy with a few others I've been thinking about sending soon.

I've taken some additional photos and ruled it out against the other VAMs suggested that have doubling on the reverse (VAM-11, VAM-12 and VAM-20) over at the VAMworld message board.

link to VAMworld message board thread