Does this mint mark look correct?
Jcld
Posts: 449 ✭✭✭
i have been hunting 1879 CC Morgans and came across this one, is this mint mark correct? It looks funky to me. 
Tagged:
0
Comments
I see a rim ding at 5:00...waiting for others opinions.
CC
the angle seems a bit interesting... for reference mine is a different date, but just an example
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
.
looks ok and that reverse is strongly clashed.
link 1 - link 2
.
1884CC, heavily clashed and cleaned it appears.
bob
Looks OK to me too.
It is actually a 1879 CC how can you tell it was cleaned?
84cc being the more common of the slanted left CC's is why I guessed it. The surfaces look off, in fact upon my first look I thought counterfeit. Dentils are too short at 1 to 2. Rim break at 12. lumps here and there and indistinct features like the clashing on the right, the A in states, etc. In fact I'm now going to say it's fake.
But, then again you have it in had and photos can throw one off base. I'm sure you have weighed and such.
bob
I am skeptical about that one.... would have to check it closely and compare to others.. the MM placement, the rim break at the top.... If I were viewing it at a show, I would likely just pass on it without even picking it up. Cheers, RickO
Thank you for the great info. It is a coin currently for sale on Ebay I am hunting a 1879 CC and this one came up. I didn't bid on it as I thought the MM looked odd for the year and I didn't like the dings on the rim. I was just curious to see what others thought. Thank you.
I actually downloaded your great CC chart a while ago and that is why I thought the MM looked odd, I didn't see that arrangement and slant to the CC on your chart for 1879. Thank you
tyvm sir. hope it continues to help. i'd say your coin is vam-2B based on the clashing and mm position.
with all the different mm positions for morgans, i figured my chart would also cause a few problems. i see i did make a note that not all mm positions are imaged. that would be an enormous undertaking but a very good one.
good thing for this forum. keep up the good work jcld.
.
The "CC" tables are interesting and probably very helpful.
My concern with most of this type of visual aid is that they rarely are based on position/measurement from a part of the fixed central design. That is, a mm location can only be reliably described in relation to the highest eagle surface, and then in relation to at least two intersecting lines between two points.
The same applies to dates.
A couple of years ago I applied this methodology to some Morgan dollar varieties. The results were inconsistent with "standard" methods that measure using variable reference points.
I wonder if it would be helpful to revise Lance's CC table to use reference points only within the eagle?
.
that is very funny!
i looked at the op coin as i just stumbled across this thread and i thought, hmm, that mm looks inauthentic!!
had to go through the thread a couple times to see the commentary i made.
this goes to show i don't know a lot of this stuff off the top of my head and it is the hard work to know where to look and/or reference my own or others info to get me across the finish line.
i did include a disclosure that not all mm positions would be covered. that would be a MASSIVE undertaking, especially to find high quality images like above.
i probably should add a disclosure to that image that not only are all known mm positions NOT covered in the image but if anyone has a position that ventures too far away from the ones shown, to do a little more research but a different position does not mean counterfeit/altered.