1881o Morgan...VAM help???

Comments

• Options

  3keepSECRETif2rDEAD Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭✭✭

  November 22, 2015 11:17AM

  ...bump for help from Sunday evening crew

  0
• Options

  messydesk Posts: 20,780 ✭✭✭✭✭

  November 22, 2015 11:39AM

  Not 27. Ear's not strongly doubled. Based on mint mark position, perhaps VAM 17 or 37.
  
  

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

  0
• Options

  3keepSECRETif2rDEAD Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭✭✭

  November 22, 2015 12:01PM

  Thanks John...I just couldn't find the die crack from left star to neck on any other of the double ears?

  0
• Options

  messydesk Posts: 20,780 ✭✭✭✭✭

  November 22, 2015 12:40PM

  I've looked through several hundred 1881-O attributing them. They're not easy, and the best thing to start with is the mint mark, since its position is not fixed like the date. I have a "mug shot book" of 81-O mint marks to help me with this, but it only gets me so far. Fortunately for the typical collector, only the VAM 1D, VAM 5, and VAM 27 are anything to write home about, and they're easily spotted.

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

  0
• Options

  3keepSECRETif2rDEAD Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭✭✭

  November 22, 2015 2:31PM

  Originally posted by: messydesk
  I've looked through several hundred 1881-O attributing them. They're not easy, and the best thing to start with is the mint mark, since its position is not fixed like the date. I have a "mug shot book" of 81-O mint marks to help me with this, but it only gets me so far. Fortunately for the typical collector, only the VAM 1D, VAM 5, and VAM 27 are anything to write home about, and they're easily spotted.

  
  
  ...yet again and again...Thank you for your help sir. I Love this place
  
  

  0