Tell me about the 1900 "O' Micro "O"
DollarAfterDollar
Posts: 3,215 ✭✭✭✭✭
A friend just gave me his to include with my next PCGS submission but it's my understanding that PCGS and NGC refuse to grade these.
Is that accurate?
How many of these are there?
How did they come about?
Why is it listed as a VAM 5 if you can't get them authenticated?
I'm so confused........
Is that accurate?
How many of these are there?
How did they come about?
Why is it listed as a VAM 5 if you can't get them authenticated?
I'm so confused........
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
0
Comments
Bottom line, don't submit it as a Micro-O and you have a slim chance of getting it into a 1900-O holder. Otherwise, you'll get it back ungraded.
In 2005 the grading services finally figured out that it, along with the 1896 and 1902 Micro-Os are counterfeits, and stopped grading them. A little while later counterfeit 1901 Micro-Os were also identified. SEGS still puts them in holders labeled "Questionable Authenticity."
Mintages of each years are completely unknown. PCGS graded just under 100 of all three dates combined and, last I heard, was still paying generous amounts per coin to get them back. Those that are left, however, have gone into hiding and rarely come on the market.
The source of these may never be definitely identified - they are about as enigmatic as the countermarked 1815 and 1825 Capped Bust quarters.
As to why these are still assigned a VAM number, that is a question you'll have to address to Leroy VanAllen.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
Very interesting story.
It covers the vintage "Privately Made" micro-o coins and others from the same "family".
It also covers why they are listed with VAM numbers:
Vintage Counterfeit Morgan Silver Dollars
<< <i>I have posted on-line the slide show presentation that I've given at some local coin clubs.
It covers the vintage "Privately Made" micro-o coins and others from the same "family".
It also covers why they are listed with VAM numbers:
Vintage Counterfeit Morgan Silver Dollars >>
Nice...........
Free Trial
The name is LEE!
Have you seen the 2014 book by Robert Gurney, et al on Counterfeit Portrait Eight Reales?
He spoke with a counterfeiter some decades ago and the indication was that the counterfeit operation was active in 1930.
The counterfeiter also warned him not to invest in the micro o silver dollars.
<< <i>Here's a picture of the first counterfeit Portrait counterfeit that I got from a self-confessed counterfeiter in 1960-2 who said he made it in Massachusetts the 1920s. The coin has been proven to have too little gold as a contaminant (to have been made in 1805) by two different XRF laboratories and this coin is the basis for my belief that full weight silver counterfeits were produced for the China trade as late as 1930.
A recent test run at RTI International has returned a preliminary signature match with an example of the 1896-O micro O Morgan dollar. I am resubmitting both coins to RTI next week for XRF re-testing with a brand new state of the art XRF testing machine which will do far finer analysis of the trace contamination (down to 1 ppm for 72 elements) in the hopes of proving that the source of both coins is identical. >>
http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v17n37a08.html
<< <i>Tom Delorey wrote a very good article on these pieces relatively recently (within the last 2 years I believe). I will need to dig out the publication to provide more details. >>
Tom DeLorey is our very own CaptHenway here. Perhaps he can provide a link if you can't find it. He's a great writer and I always enjoy reading his articles.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
So far, we know of 25 different dies (14 obverse, 11 reverse) configured into 26 die pairs (omitting the 1889-CC "VAM 7", which is a sandwich coin). Nine die pairs have anachronistic reverses, for example, an 1896 obverse with a reverse hub not produced until 1902. Only 3 die pairs are "monogamous", meaning the dies were not reused on any other currently observed counterfeit of this series. They are assumed to be made by the same organization based on other traits of the coins. XRF testing might be useful in confirming this, but one thing that was observed a year ago at FUN while testing about 20 coins with a handheld XRF device was that a couple of the coins were 90% silver rather than Sterling, so that testing might not be conclusive.
The big question that is yet to be solved, and may never be, is who made them and when. I agree with the Pre-WWI timeline. Silver was cheap, bottoming out around 50c/ounce, and if a "silversmith" were to order large amounts of Sterling silver to make these (ordering large amount of 90% silver would attract attention), they could make the coins for about 38c each plus a few cents in production costs, if enough were made, for "seigniorage" of over 50c per coin. High-grade, turn-of-the-century dollars were still available, and there were no 1921 Morgans or Peace dollars to copy. If we assume that the silver was imported from Mexico, it was easier to get Mexican silver before the Mexican civil war (1914-17), as annual production dropped significantly and export restrictions went into place in 1914. Extensive XRF testing of the counterfeits as well as early 20th century Mexican pesos might be enlightening.
If these were being made by organized crime, which is quite likely considering the scale of the operation, there were additional ways silver could be obtained, mostly involving theft, making the raw materials cost lower. It would, however, increase the risk of discovery, since an additional illegal activity would have to take place and a large, noticeable, amount of silver would need to be stolen. An easier way might be to have a few pawn broker types on the payroll that would get you your silver cheap.
The manufacturing step was sophisticated enough to produce dies and quantities of coins that would make them able to be located after 100 years of attrition. While this may not have required former mint workers with intimate knowledge of the process, having one or two on your staff would have been helpful.
Distribution, or laundering the coins into circulation, would be the final step. The article that Dan references from 1898 about $2 million worth of the counterfeit 1888-O dollars may have given this group some instructions on how to handle distribution. None of those coins are known today, so it is possible that the counterfeiters were caught and the fakes destroyed. It is also possible that they were so bad that detection was not a problem. A third possibility is that the article is totally wrong, and reporters then could be as sloppy as reporters today. Nevertheless, the selection of several different dates probably helped camouflage the coins once they entered commerce. As the coins are almost always low grade, they were likely artificially circulated so as not to draw attention to themselves. Finally, the mechanism by which the public received them would have to be one that is difficult to report, such as mob-run slot machines, perhaps in New Orleans, perhaps also elsewhere.
As for how many were made, a few of us discussed this at dinner on Friday. During the large silver melts (including Pittman Act, 1979-80), nobody would have thought twice to save circulated, common date coins from being melted, yet these coins, while not common by any stretch of the imagination, can be found in the wild with a little effort. Conventional wisdom is that roughly 100,000 coins are made from a single Morgan dollar die pair. If we pick a specific die pair known and easily identifiable in circulated grades, such as 1899-O VAM 6 (the host die pair for the fakes), we could estimate mintage on how easy it is to find one of these coins compared to how easy it is to find any of the counterfeits. Using that comparison, it feels like the number of counterfeits produced would have been in the hundreds of thousands. In order to make the risk of counterfeiting pay off, the reward would have had to have been on that order of magnitude as well.
Unfortunately, we can't prove anything about their origin at this time, rather we can only make some good stories that might have some truth to them.
I think the reason they're still assigned a VAM number is that they are fascinating contemporary counterfeits that collectors still want, much as the contemporary counterfeit bust halves, 8 reales, and even Machin's Mills halfpence are (although TPGs will grade the Machin's Mills pieces). Keeping them in the VAM catalog and adding them as discovered is also helping with tracking the family tree. Putting together a complete set of the 26 known die pairs of these would be a landmark accomplishment.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Thanks to all who contributed.
Happened to be down at the ANA Library this morning. They had not yet received the Gurney book.
TD
<< <i>Dan Carr's presentation is quite nice. I did a similar, but shorter, presentation at VAM Thing at FUN last Friday.
So far, we know of 25 different dies (14 obverse, 11 reverse) configured into 26 die pairs (omitting the 1889-CC "VAM 7", which is a sandwich coin). Nine die pairs have anachronistic reverses, for example, an 1896 obverse with a reverse hub not produced until 1902. Only 3 die pairs are "monogamous", meaning the dies were not reused on any other currently observed counterfeit of this series. They are assumed to be made by the same organization based on other traits of the coins. XRF testing might be useful in confirming this, but one thing that was observed a year ago at FUN while testing about 20 coins with a handheld XRF device was that a couple of the coins were 90% silver rather than Sterling, so that testing might not be conclusive.
The big question that is yet to be solved, and may never be, is who made them and when. I agree with the Pre-WWI timeline. Silver was cheap, bottoming out around 50c/ounce, and if a "silversmith" were to order large amounts of Sterling silver to make these (ordering large amount of 90% silver would attract attention), they could make the coins for about 38c each plus a few cents in production costs, if enough were made, for "seigniorage" of over 50c per coin. High-grade, turn-of-the-century dollars were still available, and there were no 1921 Morgans or Peace dollars to copy. If we assume that the silver was imported from Mexico, it was easier to get Mexican silver before the Mexican civil war (1914-17), as annual production dropped significantly and export restrictions went into place in 1914. Extensive XRF testing of the counterfeits as well as early 20th century Mexican pesos might be enlightening.
If these were being made by organized crime, which is quite likely considering the scale of the operation, there were additional ways silver could be obtained, mostly involving theft, making the raw materials cost lower. It would, however, increase the risk of discovery, since an additional illegal activity would have to take place and a large, noticeable, amount of silver would need to be stolen. An easier way might be to have a few pawn broker types on the payroll that would get you your silver cheap.
The manufacturing step was sophisticated enough to produce dies and quantities of coins that would make them able to be located after 100 years of attrition. While this may not have required former mint workers with intimate knowledge of the process, having one or two on your staff would have been helpful.
Distribution, or laundering the coins into circulation, would be the final step. The article that Dan references from 1898 about $2 million worth of the counterfeit 1888-O dollars may have given this group some instructions on how to handle distribution. None of those coins are known today, so it is possible that the counterfeiters were caught and the fakes destroyed. It is also possible that they were so bad that detection was not a problem. A third possibility is that the article is totally wrong, and reporters then could be as sloppy as reporters today. Nevertheless, the selection of several different dates probably helped camouflage the coins once they entered commerce. As the coins are almost always low grade, they were likely artificially circulated so as not to draw attention to themselves. Finally, the mechanism by which the public received them would have to be one that is difficult to report, such as mob-run slot machines, perhaps in New Orleans, perhaps also elsewhere.
As for how many were made, a few of us discussed this at dinner on Friday. During the large silver melts (including Pittman Act, 1979-80), nobody would have thought twice to save circulated, common date coins from being melted, yet these coins, while not common by any stretch of the imagination, can be found in the wild with a little effort. Conventional wisdom is that roughly 100,000 coins are made from a single Morgan dollar die pair. If we pick a specific die pair known and easily identifiable in circulated grades, such as 1899-O VAM 6 (the host die pair for the fakes), we could estimate mintage on how easy it is to find one of these coins compared to how easy it is to find any of the counterfeits. Using that comparison, it feels like the number of counterfeits produced would have been in the hundreds of thousands. In order to make the risk of counterfeiting pay off, the reward would have had to have been on that order of magnitude as well.
Unfortunately, we can't prove anything about their origin at this time, rather we can only make some good stories that might have some truth to them.
I think the reason they're still assigned a VAM number is that they are fascinating contemporary counterfeits that collectors still want, much as the contemporary counterfeit bust halves, 8 reales, and even Machin's Mills halfpence are (although TPGs will grade the Machin's Mills pieces). Keeping them in the VAM catalog and adding them as discovered is also helping with tracking the family tree. Putting together a complete set of the 26 known die pairs of these would be a landmark accomplishment. >>
Very fascinating, particularly so since I bought a couple of them last week.
<< <i>As the coins are almost always low grade, they were likely artificially circulated so as not to draw attention to themselves. >>
There are indications that some of the coins may have been tumbled prior to "release". But that could also be damage from slot machine usage. Either way, this would have given them an above-average number of bag marks. But they probably were NOT significantly worn down by this process. That most of them are found today in Good to Fine condition is a record of the fact that these coins were spent into circulation and passed easily alongside genuine circulating coins for a long time. The reason that they are rare above VF or so is that these coins did not sit in bank vaults like most genuine Morgan Dollars. After all, that was the purpose of them - to get people to accept them and use them - not to sit in bank vaults.
TD
These were impossible to find in PCGS holders for a reasonable price. A VF30 in PCGS holder went for $5100 at auction in Jan 2005, so I started searching Ebay to see if i could find a raw one.
I paid $400 for it and figured it had a shot at grading, but a couple of months later PCGS quit grading them.
Anyone know if there is much of market for these as a raw coin? I kind of forgot I even had it until I saw this message.
I did cherry pick this 1899 micro "O" off Teletrade for $80. I just need to get around to seeing if I can get it crossed into a PCGS holder with a MS grade. I have only owned it for over 7 years.
It's kind of an ugly 63, any opinions on if it would cross and what minimum grade. I was thinking 61 or 62 might be possible.
<< <i>Here is a picture of my 1902 micro "O" that i bought off Ebay in early Feb 2005.
These were impossible to find in PCGS holders for a reasonable price. A VF30 in PCGS holder went for $5100 at auction in Jan 2005, so I started searching Ebay to see if i could find a raw one.
I paid $400 for it and figured it had a shot at grading, but a couple of months later PCGS quit grading them.
Anyone know if there is much of market for these as a raw coin? I kind of forgot I even had it until I saw this message.
I did cherry pick this 1899 micro "O" off Teletrade for $80. I just need to get around to seeing if I can get it crossed into a PCGS holder with a MS grade. I have only owned it for over 7 years.
It's kind of an ugly 63, any opinions on if it would cross and what minimum grade. I was thinking 61 or 62 might be possible.
Crossing is not very likely as they are considered counterfeit. When I run across one I try to get it cheap and then turn it into a ring or pendant.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I see that a PCGS MS62 Vam 31 1899 micro "O" sold recently for $15,275 in a Heritage auction, so I do have a little more incentive to try and get this one in PCGS plastic.
Auction link