What do you think is going on with this mintmark?
Jcld
Posts: 449 ✭✭✭
I can't find a reference for what is going on with this mint mark. The coin is labeled as a 1900-0. Any ideas?
Tagged:
0
Comments
It looks like strike doubling.
I don't see the shelf appearance of strike doubling. I am still not sure what it is.
Before giving my opinion...What is the date of the coin?
It is a 1900 Morgan. In a cardboard flip labeled 1900-O
The reason I asked is because there were two Mintmark sizes for this date. I would send it to John Roberts at ANACS, In the photo it does not appear to be Ejection Doubled or damage.
Best case, the engraver punched the small "O" and the die was never sent. Then the mintmark style was changed to a larger "O" and they put it in again. This is probably a fairy tale.
It may turn out to be nothing but I think it is neat no matter what it is.
Thank you for your opinion. I have been looking at VAMworld for the date, but most are O/CC which this doesn't appear to be. They do list VAM 24 as a o/o but no picture.
The circumferences of the inner and outer “O” look normal. I would guess partial filled die or die erosion.
slip sliding away
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Definitely different.
Besides the song what does this have to do with the coin
IMO, it's ejection/mechanical doubling of the MM.
I don't believe it's damage, as there is nothing surrounding
the "O" to indicate that.
Yes, it might be a bit unusual to have the doubling on the
MM only, and not the surrounding lettering or design, but
that's what it certainly looks like to me.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Fred Weinberg is an error expert and he is agreeing with her! There was a shift in the die as it pulled away for the coin. It produces a shelf-like shift.
Now, I'm going to repeat my advice. I see NO damage on the mint mark. I also see a smooth, original surface on the flat part of the top right surface. I see no evidence of a shift with a pushed over surface - may be the light. Your coin needs to be examined "in-hand" under a stereo microscope.
I’ll go along with my man, Fred. He is the expert . What ever it is, it’s unusual and looks pretty cool.
The big diebreak indicates that this strike wasn't a "clean" strike.
A little chatter caused machine doubling.
What Fred said.
A die break has nothing to do with Machine doubling or a "clean strike" whatever that is.
Sorry that you didn't understand, Insider.
A die with a big crack is going to preform quite differently than one that is new and solid. It's going to flex and give, somewhat. Make sense now?
So does anyone have an example of a 1900-O VAM25? The description on Vamworld seems to mostly fit the coin I have, but I can't seem to find a picture anywhere.
1900-O VAM-24 Near Date, O/O Left
Discovered by Pete Bishal, December 1974.
24 III2 5 - C3n (O/O Left) I-2 R-3
Obverse III2 5 - Date set further left than normal.
Reverse C3n - Mint mark set high and doubled on left inside. Mint mark punched very deep into die with narrow center opening.
You and I have a different definition of a big Die Break. Additionally, perhaps you would explain to me why a die that is "performing differently" only affected the "O."
AFAIK, we are considering either "ejection doubling" or an RPM. They have nothing to do with the "Die BREAK." Does that make sense now? It does to me.
The doubling on the "O" is on the top of the other "O." It got there ether because it was pushed over (common strike doubled) or was punched deeper into the die (RPM) than the "O" that is lower.
The description in VAM World does not match your piece as there is no sign of anything "inside" the "O."
That is certainly a unique manifestation.... I will agree with Fred's opinion.... I certainly have no competing ideas....Very interesting though.... Cheers, RickO
We can’t VAM the coin without establishing the date position anyway.
Now. about that bridge between Oakland and San Francisco that is for sale or rent.
I hope you are correct.
OK, Insider, since you obviously know it all, I won't try to explain.
IMO, there is no need for you to get a "snarky" attitude and call me a know-it-all.
Many folks more knowledgeable than you or I have posted their opinions. They are probably correct; however, I guarantee I have seen more machine doubling under VERY high magnification than either of them! I do not see the usual characteristics of machine doubling in the image so I'm keeping an open mind. The chance that this is an RPM is virtually ZERO yet it is a very interesting coin. I'll never know 100% from an image but I do know another thing...I didn't "buy" your explanation about the broken die causing what we see on the mint mark. Nevertheless, thanks for taking the time to educate me yesterday.
Would it help to see a higher magnification of the Mint Mark?
Jcld it may be helpful if you show a pic of the
complete obv & rev. Also the mintmark image
is a bit blurry. Could you do a very clear image
of it please.
The 1900-O , it is thought, used the medium O
mint mark close to the ribbon for 1884-1904
and the small O for 1880, 1896, 1899, 1900 and 1902.
Per Van Allen & Mallis.
It is a very interesting mint mark that "may" have been
punched with two different punches, or a punch that
was used for the $10 gold eagle. Who knows ?
R.I.P. Bear
So i added a few more pictures to see if this helps anyone figure out what is happening with the MM on this 1900-0 Morgain
