Opinions on these Graded ANACS Morgans edit to add Vam experts look

Smittys · December 2, 2015 5:48AM

CommemKing · December 2, 2015 6:03AM

Um, is this a joke? I think you can find better. Maybe a VAM I'm missing?

Nap · December 2, 2015 7:58AM

I think the 1896-O is also cleaned. It may be "market acceptable"

Are you concerned about authenticity, appropriate grades, or something else?

USMarine6 · December 2, 2015 8:27AM

Please tell me your not this desperate to get to 10000 posts. Lol

Cougar1978 · December 2, 2015 8:30AM

I like the 1896-O dollar. I have sold a few of the yellow holder ANACS coins this year. I basically price them at CW Trends.

With silver so cheap nice circ dollars may be a good buy.

coindeuce · December 2, 2015 11:14AM

I'm not sure how your '96-O could have slipped under the radar at ANACS, but it sure looks like one of the privately made micro o examples. Can you PM or post a close-up image of the reverse ? There are to date 7 different 1896-O die pairs with micro o that are confirmed as not genuine Mint issues. The same may be true of your 1902-o's, for which there are 5 known privately made die pairs with the micro o mintmark.

coindeuce · December 2, 2015 11:21AM

Actually, Smitty, on second review I'm certain the 1896-o and both 1902-o's are the privately made (counterfeit) micro o mintmark issues. Those are in fairly strong demand among VAM collectors - I'm still baffled as to how they could have slipped under the radar at ANACS. John Roberts is very thorough in his observation of Morgans when he gets to see them. Perhaps these were submitted on a bulk grading order ?

I hate to make the point to CommemKing and USMarine6, but hey guys, these coins are hot commodities to VAM collectors. If they were un-recognized and in PCGS holders, they would bring several thousand in an auction right now.

Rampage · December 2, 2015 11:27AM

Yep, all three coins are micro-O.

messydesk · December 2, 2015 11:29AM

Those weren't sent in for attribution, so they didn't get seen by JohnR, who definitely would have flagged them. The first two are definitely micro O counterfeits. I can't tell on the third, but I suspect it is at least related to the micro O counterfeits. Why else send in a cleaned, XF 02-O? While the contemporary counterfeits with micro O are usually caught by the TPGs, the related ones usually are not, for which VAM collectors are grateful.

Smittys · December 2, 2015 1:52PM

Originally posted by: Rampage
Yep, all three coins are micro-O.

I sent them in a while back, seeing if they would catch them or not. Guess Not. Didn't send in for Vam, but any good Morgan person shoulda saw these, IMHO.

Anyway I figure it's a win since the graded them.

dcarr · December 3, 2015 5:28AM

Originally posted by: Smittys

Originally posted by: Rampage
Yep, all three coins are micro-O.

I sent them in a while back, seeing if they would catch them or not. Guess Not. Didn't send in for Vam, but any good Morgan person shoulda saw these, IMHO.

Anyway I figure it's a win since the graded them.

John Roberts at ANACS is a well-known VAM expert. But I'm guessing he only views such coins if they are sent in for VAM attribution. One of the reasons people collect these vintage "privately-made" Morgans is that they easily passed for genuine coins and circulated alongside genuine coins. I've seen such coins in all the major grading service holders - some being encapsulated after the 2005 announcement. Like this one:

PS:

ANACS seems to be very tough on "cleaning". Those two coins look like they could grade as problem-free most of the time (if they were genuine).

The pictures aren't very clear. Is that last one a micro-o ? It looks almost like it has the C4 reverse of 1900 (wide gap between neck and wing).

wooglout · December 3, 2015 6:39AM

HA. Jaw meet floor. Nice slabs on those OP!!

IrishMikey · December 3, 2015 10:44AM

For more information on the "Privately Made" Morgan dollars, spend some time on the VAM World web site. Just the 1896-O has about a dozen listings now. The Micro O pieces are easier to spot, of course, but don't be too hard on ANACS (or NGC, or PCGS) for missing one of these occasionally. Try going through 500 to 1000 circulated dollars sometime, and see how long it takes for your eyes to glaze over.

3keepSECRETif2rDEAD · December 3, 2015 12:26PM

That's bad azz man! What a score for you and obviously a bit of an emberassment for ANACS.

messydesk · December 3, 2015 12:47PM

The family tree of these counterfeits has 27, count 'em, 27 different die pairs. Two die pairs are "monogamous," not appearing with any other dies, but are currently presumed to be part of The Family. The other 25 die pairs exhibit varying amounts of promiscuity, as it were. There is one additional counterfeit die pair listed in VAM (96-O VAM 22) that does not seem to be part of The Family.

dcarr · December 4, 2015 7:01AM

Originally posted by: messydesk
The family tree of these counterfeits has 27, count 'em, 27 different die pairs. Two die pairs are "monogamous," not appearing with any other dies, but are currently presumed to be part of The Family. The other 25 die pairs exhibit varying amounts of promiscuity, as it were. There is one additional counterfeit die pair listed in VAM (96-O VAM 22) that does not seem to be part of The Family.

Soon to be 28, once Leroy Van Allen assigns a VAM number (presumably VAM-8) to an 1893-O with a C3 reverse that I recently discovered. That discovery coin has the same obverse die as 1893-O VAMs 6 & 7, but the reverse die was previously unreported.

New discovery privately-made 1893-O

I saw your privately-made die pair chart at VAMworld (now gone ?). Last time I saw it, I think it was missing 1902-O VAM-92. I'd like to see it again. I think there is a group of 1893-O and 1896-O coins which are not connected to the main group.

Opinions on these Graded ANACS Morgans edit to add Vam experts look

Comments

Leave a Comment