1882-CC morgan VAM 2 on the bay fake ? PCGS holder

Comments

• Options

  MGLICKER Posts: 7,995 ✭✭✭

  January 14, 2014 2:26AM

  Coin and holder are fine. That would be way more work than the Chinese want to engage in.

  0
• Options

  AUandAG Posts: 25,053 ✭✭✭✭✭

  January 14, 2014 2:29AM

  It does appear to be the VAM 2 via the seller poor pics. You can vaguely see the die polish under the
  stars to the right of the date. If you search the PCGS number it does show "Misplaced date" in the
  verification.
  I would never have called it such but it seems that PCGS has done so.
  
  bob

  Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
  

  0
• Options

  LindeDad Posts: 18,766 ✭✭✭✭✭

  January 14, 2014 2:48AM

  Seems VAM World and PCGS don't totally agree on designation.

  My Current project....https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/album/160794

  0
• Options

  messydesk Posts: 20,873 ✭✭✭✭✭

  January 14, 2014 4:01AM

  
  
  << <i>I am asking about this for the seller I have no Idea other than a VAM 2 on VAMWORLD is not a misplaced date. >>
  
  
  Sure it is. VAMWorld has a description of the misplaced date (1 top below left 8), PCGS simply says it's a misplaced date.

  John
  Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution

  0
• Options

  phnatacc Posts: 367 ✭✭

  January 14, 2014 4:05AM

  
  
  << <i>
  
  << <i>I am asking about this for the seller I have no Idea other than a VAM 2 on VAMWORLD is not a misplaced date. >>
  
  
  Sure it is. VAMWorld has a description of the misplaced date (1 top below left 8), PCGS simply says it's a misplaced date. >>
  
  
  
  This.
  
  Coin, holder, and description are all fine.

  0