Home U.S. Coin Forum

Top Morgan Dollar Die Variety, An Advancement of Knowledge book by Kevin Flynn

kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭
The Top Morgan Dollar Varieties, An Advancement of Knowledge, by Kevin Flynn is now available. The book is 6 by 9, 190 pages. Softcover only $24.95 plus shipping.

The primary objective of this book is the presentation and advancement of knowledge of many of the top Morgan Dollar die varieties. The evolution in the study of a series requires a more in depth understanding of those coins. Not just that they exist, but how and why they were created and what factors contributed to their creation.

The first chapter explains what criteria was used to select the top varieties. The beginning of the book presents the die making process and provides an analysis on each type of die variety and how it is created. Approximately 70% of the number of Morgan Dollar working dies used by the Philadelphia and branch mints was uncovered and is presented.

For each of the top Morgan Dollar die varieties, a complete description of the variety, including all doubling, repunching, clashing, or any other part of the variety, describing in detail the design elements and other parts of the coin affected. Multiple detailed micro-photographs showing the die variety and also key diagnostics to help identify and distinguish the variety from other that are similar. All diagnostics and where applicable, the die stages. Comments that primarily focus on how the die variety was created, but also present other interesting helpful information. Pricing, cross references, and the primary point of interest. One of the most useful tools in a die variety book is clear photographs displaying the variety; this is one of Flynn’s primary forte, close up photographs.

The National Archives contains letters from those individuals who were responsible for all aspects of the creation of the design, working dies, machinery, striking of coins, and rules and regulations enforced at the mints. These letters can help us learn a great deal about our coins. For examples, correspondence between the Philadelphia and branch mints show that between 1885 and 1898 the branch mints were required to return all working dies to the Philadelphia Mint at the end of each year. Chief Engraver Charles Barber would then determine if unused reverse working dies could be resent to the branch mints. For example, 10 pair of dollar working dies were sent to the Carson City Mint in 1893 with 10 pair returned in January of 1894. Five of the reverses were unused and saved for future use. These eventually became the 5 reverses that were used by the New Orleans Mint in 1900 and became the 1900-O/CC varieties.

There are approximately twenty-five known 1880 Morgan Dollars; the most for any one year in any series. Letters found in the National Archives showed the only time these overdates could have been created. Many of these 1880 Morgan overdates have diagnostics which are not seen on other overdates and were the key to unraveling the mystery on how these overdates were created.

There have been several die varieties that have been misattributed, such as the 1898-O VAM 20 that was simply called a repunched date and is actually the only known large/small date in the Morgan Dollar series. Other varieties have been absolutely refuted such as the 1882-O VAM 3, 4, 5, which cannot be the result of an underlying S mint mark. These are presented along with a complete analysis on these varieties. This includes four different stages of the 1882-O VAM 3 EDS.

For some varieties such as the 1899-O Micro O and 1900-O/CC, as there are several varieties of each, all known varieties are presented with detailed photographs and complete diagnostics to make distinguishing, even in lower grades much easier.

Price for the softcover is $24.95 plus $5 for shipping. To order, send a check or money order to Kyle Vick at Stanton Books and Stone Mountain Supply, 1575 Old Alabama Road, Suite 115, Roswell, GA 30076, 770-640-5055, www.stantonbooks.com. Kyle also offers dealer discounts and large quantity discounts.

Kevin J Flynn

Comments

  • kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭
    Note, this thread was started over as there were individuals who responded in the original thread that they believed books for sale were not to be posted herein

    I asked Don Willis, the moderator herein, who stated books were permitted to be posted herein.

    Kevin
    Kevin J Flynn
  • FredWeinbergFredWeinberg Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Kevin,

    Going directly to Don, and getting his approval,
    should end the other thread.

    I didn't think the Moderator would dis-allow letting
    us know about new research/educational materials
    coming up! (even books!)

    Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors
    for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
  • DaveWcoinsDaveWcoins Posts: 1,185 ✭✭✭
    The writing and publishing of coin books is done for the most part as a public service for the hobby.

    Take 5 minutes and figure out the cost + time vs. what you can expect to "make" from even a successful coin book.

    You should be thanking Mr. Flynn and the other coin authors out there for donating their time to make our great hobby even better.

    Oh -- and thank you, Mr. Flynn!

    Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
  • CoinZipCoinZip Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭
    image

    Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots

  • RampageRampage Posts: 9,412 ✭✭✭✭
    Looking forward to getting my copy. Thanks!



  • coindeucecoindeuce Posts: 13,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If Don Willis approves of numismatic authors selling their educational books in the discussion forum, I'm on board with that. I find it mighty ironic though, that the OP hasn't even made an appearance with the same info at vamworld.com, the site where specialty collectors who are most eager to learn more about Morgan Dollar VAMs would benefit most from this new book. image

    I'm also curious as to how the grading services may proceed going forward with regard to your refutation of the 1882-O/S varieties. Do you think they will buy all of these coins back, or will they offer a special reconsideration service for these coins to get them properly identified to the market ? Has this been discussed at all ? Certainly one can see how this issue could be a replay of the disposition of the privately made micro o varieties of 1896, 1901, 1902 and whatever others have been discovered.

    "Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
    http://www.americanlegacycoins.com

  • kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭
    [qI'm also curious as to how the grading services may proceed going forward with regard to your refutation of the 1882-O/S varieties. Do you think they will buy all of these coins back, or will they offer a special reconsideration service for these coins to get them properly identified to the market ? Has this been discussed at all ? Certainly one can see how this issue could be a replay of the disposition of the privately made micro o varieties of 1896, 1901, 1902 and whatever others have been discovered. >>



    In speaking to people at PCGS, I was told that their primary objective is the determination of whether a coin in genuine. And I believe this is what is guaranteed. Please correct me if this is incorrect.
    The designation of a die variety by the grading services, from what I have been told, is not guaranteed, but is an opinion to what is believed based upon the evidence at the time.
    Kevin J Flynn
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Congratulations on the book...sounds like an in depth study worth reading.... Cheers, RickO
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 31,471 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>If Don Willis approves of numismatic authors selling their educational books in the discussion forum, I'm on board with that. I find it mighty ironic though, that the OP hasn't even made an appearance with the same info at vamworld.com, the site where specialty collectors who are most eager to learn more about Morgan Dollar VAMs would benefit most from this new book. image

    I'm also curious as to how the grading services may proceed going forward with regard to your refutation of the 1882-O/S varieties. Do you think they will buy all of these coins back, or will they offer a special reconsideration service for these coins to get them properly identified to the market ? Has this been discussed at all ? Certainly one can see how this issue could be a replay of the disposition of the privately made micro o varieties of 1896, 1901, 1902 and whatever others have been discovered. >>



    Not everybody agrees with Mr. Flynn's refutation of the 1882-O/S dollar varieties, just as not everybody agrees as to the status of the various 1914/3 nickels. However, his is a valid opinion in either case, and the TPG's are capable of accepting opinions on either side of either fence.

    I am especially looking forward to reading the section on the 1880 overdate dies. Ted Clark's original series on them in Coin World back around 1970 is indirectly responsible for me ending up going to work for Coin World in 1973.

    TD

    Edited to add: It is fascinating how the overdating and overmintmarking processes can result in such wildly different results. Take the 1880-P VAM-6 and VAM-23 dollars. Both unquestioned overdates, yet with remains of the underdate totally unlike each other.
    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • FredWeinbergFredWeinberg Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just rec'd the book today, it looks quite interesting
    and comprehensive.

    I'm going to try to read it, or at least start to, this
    weekend.......

    Congrats on the work!
    Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors
    for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,765 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If not for authors there'd be no authorization. Kudos on the book.
  • FredWeinbergFredWeinberg Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Read most of this new book over the weekend;
    Great info on how die varieties are made, with
    good photos of other doubled die error coins
    to compare with Morgan varieties, including
    the overdates, overmintmarks, misplaced dates, etc.

    The close up photos of the 1880 overdates are
    exceptional, and help explain what we're seeing when
    we view some of these coins with a magnifying
    glass -

    Lots of reading on other types of Morgan die varieties
    too - and of the actual varieties from 1878 to the
    1921-D Vam 1A.

    IF you ever look at Morgan dollars for VAMS, or have
    any interest in how dies are made, and how different
    varieties were made, this book is very educational
    and would certainly help any CherryPicker who reads it.

    Thanks to Kevin for his research, and for sharing such
    detailed information this Series.
    Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors
    for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 31,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Picked up the book at the ANA Library today. Will study it and see what observations I can come up with.
    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 31,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Studied the section on the 1880 overdates. Interesting theory that the dies may have been given incomplete 1879 impressions that were then finished with an 1880 hub. This is very similar to my theory as to what may have happened with the 1914/3 nickel dies. I shall study the section further.

    One thought as to why the underdates are so different from die to die: the hypothetical incomplete 1879 impressions might have varied in completeness and/or depth. Also, the incomplete dies may have been annealed to greater or lesser degrees of hardness before receiving one or more impressions from an 1880-dated hub.

    This may have affected how the metal in and around the 1879 date moved during the 1880 impression(s). On one die the metal may have displaced sideways, while on another it may have displaced downwards, carrying parts of the 1879 date deeper into the die, as appears to have taken place on the 1880-P VAM-23.

    Is it known for certain when the Mint stopped using dated or partially-dated Morgan dollar obverse hubs?

    TD
    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • messydeskmessydesk Posts: 19,617 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Is it known for certain when the Mint stopped using dated or partially-dated Morgan dollar obverse hubs?

    TD >>


    Yes. 1883 is the last such year. Starting in 1884, we have variation in date position.
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 31,471 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>Is it known for certain when the Mint stopped using dated or partially-dated Morgan dollar obverse hubs?

    TD >>


    Yes. 1883 is the last such year. Starting in 1884, we have variation in date position. >>



    Thank you.

    So apparently the Mint made a dated master die each year to raise up one or more working hubs from. Were those master dies sunk from a partially dated master hub with either two (18) or three (187 then 188) digits on it, or a dateless master hub?

    I find Kevin's theory that the 1879 dies might have been partially ground down and then rehubbed with an 1880-dated working hub fascinating. Something similar was done with the 1878 7/8TF dies just a year and a half earlier, presumably by the same people in the die shop. This might account for the shallow underdates.

    And what about the deep underdates like the 1880-P VAM-23? They may have experimented with different techniques to see how best to salvage old, dated working dies.

    What would happen if a never-hardened 1879 die was heated and re-hubbed with a dateless master hub or working hub to partially collapse the date in the die, with the die then being re-dated with either a date punch (think of the 1877/6 half) or a dated hub? This collapsed date theory could explain why the right side of the 9 is so thin on the VAM-23, while still being deep in the die.

    TD

    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • messydeskmessydesk Posts: 19,617 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Keep in mind that almost all 1880-dated Morgan dollars show signs of being redated, even if you don't see parts of the 7 or 9. The most obvious are all the 80-CCs, which show everything from the bottom of the 7 to a strong overdate. The less obvious are those coins which show a strong 18 and weaker 80, where the 18 has doubling and the 80 might not. Here, the 1880 punch was lined with with the 18 on the die and sunk into the die. If the 79 was repaired, we may never know, as the repair job may have been undetectable (i.e., a complete success). The dash that shows up under the 2nd 8 on some coins from 1880-1885 may be an alignment marker put into the die at the same position that the bottom of the 7 would occasionally be seen when redating dies in 1880. There is also a plausible 1881/7(9) overdate -- VAM 8A, but it's not sufficiently convincing on its own.
  • kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Studied the section on the 1880 overdates. Interesting theory that the dies may have been given incomplete 1879 impressions that were then finished with an 1880 hub. This is very similar to my theory as to what may have happened with the 1914/3 nickel dies. I shall study the section further.
    TD >>



    We think a lot alike Tom, as soon as I figured this out, my first thought was, oh crap, I need to check this on the 1914/3 Buff, which I will being doing soon.

    Kevin
    Kevin J Flynn
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 31,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Been giving the book second thought. Looking at the the O/CC pictures on P. 170, particularly the VAM-12 in the lower right corner, I cannot see how simple overpunching with an "O" mint mark punch could have diminished the "CC" so evenly. If the only action to displace metal was the movement of die steel away from the O punch, then we should see a shrinking of the C's right next to the O but a lesser shrinking at the far left and far right of the CC. That ain't what we got.

    Looking at all the O/CC dies, if the dies themselves had been ground down to mostly remove the die steel around the incused CC's, then it would have removed the die steel around the base of the bow and the tops of DO of DOLLAR as well. These design elements are not weak on the O/CC dies, so I think we can rule out ground down dies.

    As Kevin says in discussing the possibility of adding metal to existing dies to fill in holes, this seems most unlikely. I think that we can rule out adding metal to a die.

    This brings me back to the theory that "finished" dies might have been heated and rehubbed to mostly collapse an existing element, such as the 79 in the die on the 1880-P VAM-23, or the CC's of five obsolete Carson City dies.

    I only express this as a theory for now, and urge those with examples of O/CC dollars to study the reverses for any unnoticed traces of hub doubling.

    I never would have considered this had not Kevin suggested that the 1880 overdates were created by rehubbing dies. I think that theory is looking pretty good right now.

    I also think that it may not be coincidence that the Mint began rehubbing certain C3 reverses with the C4 reverse hub in 1900, the year that it MAY have recycled the old CC reverses by first rehubbing them with the unmintmarked reverse hub.

    TD
    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 31,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Kevin just pointed out to me via email that on the 1916 DDO nickel the first, partial impression of the 1916 date was not crushed flat by the subsequent huibbing. That is an excellent point. It would also apply to the 1955 DDO cent. I shall have to consider this further.

    As to the theory that a finished CC working die was ground down and rehubbed, this now sounds more likely, though I am wondering how much metal they can move during the rehubbing without a central cone to begin with. I suppose that if they ground it down with a basining wheel the might keep enough of the curvature to be able to rehub it without a cone. Or perhaps if they used an excessively curved basining wheel they could just lower the outer few millimeters of the die's border, including the date or mint mark regions, and put that back in with a rehubbing. A die ground down like that around the borders would become a cone of sorts.

    A fascinating puzzle!

    TD
    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Kevin just pointed out to me via email that on the 1916 DDO nickel the first, partial impression of the 1916 date was not crushed flat by the subsequent huibbing. That is an excellent point. It would also apply to the 1955 DDO cent. I shall have to consider this further.
    As to the theory that a finished CC working die was ground down and rehubbed, this now sounds more likely, though I am wondering how much metal they can move during the rehubbing without a central cone to begin with. I suppose that if they ground it down with a basining wheel the might keep enough of the curvature to be able to rehub it without a cone. Or perhaps if they used an excessively curved basining wheel they could just lower the outer few millimeters of the die's border, including the date or mint mark regions, and put that back in with a rehubbing. A die ground down like that around the borders would become a cone of sorts.
    A fascinating puzzle!
    TD >>



    Tom

    Your last point "Or perhaps if they used an excessively curved basining wheel they could just lower the outer few millimeters of the die's border, including the date or mint mark regions, and put that back in with a rehubbing. A die ground down like that around the borders would become a cone of sorts." is a good alternative viable solution for the 1900-O/CC as it would leave the central design intact with the rim elements replaced on rehubbing, then restriking the O by hand. But consider if they cut the edge of the die on an angle, then the top of the remnants of any CC should be stronger than the bottom. The would have had to grind it down on the edge flat across the top.

    On a working die the size of the Morgan that required 10 hubbings, believe any initial different design elements could be filled/distorted/moved such as what happened on the 1880 overdates, this would be especially true if the cone on the working die was at the point of the date, and therefore the extra metal of the cone being pushed not only down, but also inward and around the hub design elements. This left the surfaces of the top of remants of the 7 rough, and most of the outline is distored on the 79s.

    Kevin
    Kevin J Flynn
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 31,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You are right about the hypothetical beveling leaving more of the top of the CC, so if it was ground down and then rehubbed it was probably ground down with a standard basining wheel.

    Of course this does not explain the strong remnants on the VAM-8 & 8A die.

    Sigh.
    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭


    << <i>You are right about the hypothetical beveling leaving more of the top of the CC, so if it was ground down and then rehubbed it was probably ground down with a standard basining wheel.
    Of course this does not explain the strong remnants on the VAM-8 & 8A die.
    Sigh. >>



    Tom,

    On the 1900-O/CC, VAM-8/8A, the right CC is much stronger in depth than the left.

    Hypothetical - if on the original reverse die, the CC mint mark punch was tilted slightly to the right, then the right side should be slightly deeper than the left.
    If you ground down evenly, more remnants would be left on the right 'C'.
    As the punching of the mint mark was a manual process, anything is feasible.

    On the other 4 O/CC reverses, the depth of the CCs is pretty consistent across, which implies a higher probability that the same process was applied, and that the 8/8A were more towards an anomaly such as the start of the CCs were a different depth.

    Just a thought.

    Kevin
    Kevin J Flynn

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file