New Purchase: 1886-O NGC AU-58 (PL) Morgan Dollar -- VAM 1A - Top 100 - "E" Clash Mark --

Stuart · January 21, 2006 12:17PM

Today at the Houston SW Money Coin Show I purchased a very interesting 1886-O NGC AU-58 PL Morgan Dollar -- "Top 100" (VAM 1-A - "E" Clash Mark), which is unattributed on the NGC Holder, but is a very collectible VAM Variety. NGC grades deserving AU Morgan Dollars with a PL designation, while PCGS does not.

This coin is very scarce in high grade PL, which combined with the VAM variety makes it a very unusual and interesting show find!!

I do not yet have photos of the coin to post, but will try to get them posted within a week.

DennisH · January 21, 2006 3:17PM

Stuart:

Congratulations!!!

Besides being a great date, that is also one of the very neat VAMs. That's a coin any of us VAMnuts would be proud to own.

Stuart · January 21, 2006 11:09PM

Dennis: Thanks for your post regarding the 1886-O Morgan Dollar that I purchased yesterday. They are very scarce in NGC AU-58 PL, or a PL coin note designated as PL in a PCGS AU-58 holder.

I assume that the VAM-1A "Top 100" Clashed Die "E on Reverse" Variety adds 2-3x commercial value to an already scarce Morgan Dollar seldomly seen with Prooflike designation or in PL condition.

DennisH · January 22, 2006 3:45AM

Stuart:

AU58PL is a strange grade to attempt to price, especially when trying to involve PCGS in the process since they don't give circulated coins the PL designation. My experience has been that the PL designation usually adds to the eye appeal of the coin and it's aestetic desireability and price. But the bottom line is, every 58PL I've ever run across has been priced on its own merits, without much regard for AU50 and MS60 sheet prices.

What I am sure of is this particular VAM is highly desireable in an AU58 PCGS holder, due to the recent creation of VAM Registry sets and the very few Mint State examples that exist. I recommend you try crossing it at least once. As far as what it might sell for, assuming is crosses at AU58, here are actual AU58 VAM 1A sales prices I've collected since late-2004. (H is Heritage, E is eBay, and PP is private party.) As you can see, they are all over the board. The low ANACS prices most likely reflect inaccurate grading. (I can vouch for the $125 coin because I bought it, and it wasn't a 58. It's now a PCGS-55... so it was still an excellent buy.)

1886-O 1A 58 NGC Sep-05 PP $450
1886-O 1A 58 ANACS Sep-05 H $403
1886-O 1A 58 NGC Jul-05 H $345
1886-O 1A 58 ANACS Jan-05 H $253
1886-O 1A 58 NGC Apr-05 E $195
1886-O 1A 58 ANACS Jan-05 PP $125

What you can also see is, prices have risen significantly of late and reflect what I think the accurate value of the coin is. (AU55s are significantly less, however.) My guess is that if your coin was in a PCGS holder and graded AU58, and it looks Mint State at first glance, and it doesn't have the distracting overly baggy look that so many PLs have in lower grades, it would probably be a $500 coin. I wouldn't be surprised if it sold for more if it was displayed at shows where people could actually hold and see it... versus having to guess from scans or other digital images.

Hope this helps, and please do post images when you can.

anablep · January 22, 2006 3:50AM

Can't wait to see it!

Wolf359 · January 22, 2006 4:21AM

Stuart, sounds like a great purchase.

The 1886-O VAM-1A comes in different flavors, up to 7 clash marks on the reverse and you might have the rarther scarce one-to-two clash
marks (counting near the wreath) die state. This seems more than likey if the coin is proof-like. In other words additional clashing happened on the die after your coin was struck. There are a few folks out there who do hunt rare die states, so if you ever sell it, mention that, and it wouldn't surprise me if you garner an additional premium over prices Dennis has quoted you.

Stuart · January 22, 2006 9:02AM

Dennis, Wayne and Jack: Thanks very much for your informative posts about my new 1886-O NGC AU-58 Prooflike (PL) Morgan Dollar -- VAM 1A - Top 100 - "E" Clash Mark purchased at this weekend's Houston SW Money Coin Show.

I will likely not try to cross this Morgan into a PCGS holder, because it currently is designated NGC AU-58 PL, and PCGS does not currently designate Morgan Dollars as PL in AU grades, but limits their PL and DMPL designations to only Mint State graded Morgan Dollars.

I personally prefer that this scarce VAM variety 1886-O Morgan Dollar have the distinction that it deserves in being designated Prooflike. It is a very cool coin!!

wam98 · January 22, 2006 9:08AM

Great score Stuart. I'll keep checking for photos. An AU-58PL Morgan should be very interesting.

Stuart · January 22, 2006 10:21AM

Here are my first attempts at posting photos of this 1886-O NGC AU-58 Prooflike (PL) Morgan Dollar -- VAM 1A - Top 100 - "E" Clash Mark Morgan Dollar.

Closeup of VAM 1A Diagnostic Area -- Note "E" Under Eagle's Tail Feathers, Nose Clash at left inside wreath, Cotton Blossom Clash Under Eagle's Left (Viewer's Right) Wing Above Arrow Points, and Neck Clash "V" in Extreme Upper Right Area of Photo Inside Wreath.

MORGANHUNTER2 · January 22, 2006 10:22AM

I was probably one of a few that saw the coin in HAND, it is a slider and it is PL, and the clashed E stands out like a hokker on Santa monica Blvd.

The coin is excellent not only in grade, but appearance- it is PL no doubt, and until PCGS recognizes that you can have a PL in an AU grade- NGC and Anacs will hold top bill for it.

Now I will do my special Sunday report......

Oney · January 22, 2006 10:32AM

Great purchase Stuart! Love those clashed E's..............

Stuart · January 22, 2006 11:12AM

Wade and Brian: Thanks for your posts about my new 1886-O NGC AU-58 (PL) Morgan Dollar -- VAM 1A - Top 100 - "E" Clash Mark.

I have recently posted new photos to this thread that I took this evening for your viewing pleasure.

Please let me know what you guys think of this scarce Morgan Dollar.

lava · January 22, 2006 11:54AM

Stuart, if it helps, I share your preference for the pl designation, but bear in mind that when you send the coin in to cross, assuming it crosses they will return the ngc label, which you may retain to show that NGC felt it was pl. If the coin is pl, I would not worry too much about losing the pl designation, because we all know PCGS doesn't make 58pls. You might even consider photographing the coin in the NGC holder before submitting it.

I had a tough call, but I opted to cross my 1889-cc in 58pl from NGC to PCGS. Yes I lost the designation, but like I said, its pl qualities are readily apparent, and I still have the NGC label. In my mind, a PCGS 58 means more than an NGC 58, so I crossed it.

I'd take it on a coin by coin basis. The vam designation is a large factor here, so I'd cross it as Dennis suggested.

Regardless, you got a nice one. I don't think any of mine are vams, but I don't really pay close attention to varieties.

anablep · January 22, 2006 11:57AM

Wow.

Just awesome.

That clashed E is great!

Whether you cross it or not (I'd leave it alone), the fact that its PL, clashed E and an 1886-O (real tough date in higher grades) is a winning combination.

Wolf359 · January 22, 2006 12:30PM

...and Stuart confirmed it's only got one clash near the wreath.

So, this is the Early Die State of VAM-1A, very rare according to Jeff Oxman. We actually spoke about
this vam last year at ANA and he mentioned the one-clash stage.

I think Stuart should keep it, because it;s a stunning coin, but I'd be a strong buyer if it ever appeared
on the market. Awesome!

Stuart · January 22, 2006 2:06PM

Lava, Jack and Wayne: Thanks very much for posting your thoughts about my new 1886-O NGC AU-58 (PL) Morgan Dollar -- VAM 1A - Top 100 - "E" Clash Mark.

Lava: This situation is a bit different than your 1889-CC AU-58 circumstance, because I have already successfully crossed an 1886-O ANACS AU-58 Morgan Dollar into a PCGS AU-58 holder to fill a spot in my PCGS Morgan Dollar Registry Set.

Therefore I do not need this coin to fill a hole in that set. This particular coin is such an obvious VAM, that to my way of thinking it does not even require official VAM attribution. However, I may wish to send it back to NGC for VAM attribution, in case they may wish to bump her up a grade or two into Mint State.

lava · January 22, 2006 2:10PM

Your reasoning makes sense. I like that vam a lot, more so than when I first saw it. It's a keeper!

nesvt · January 22, 2006 2:37PM

That's looks great! That E really stands out. Congrats!

messydesk · January 22, 2006 9:10PM

Wow! Very nice rare early die state you have there. Eventually, pricing levels will become established for the different known die states of this one. I see no reason to attempt to cross it into a different holder if it's staying in your collection.

Coxe · January 22, 2006 11:07PM

Fascinating purchase. Anyone who knows prooflikes and clashes understands they are not two things that should go together. They make for such an exotic condition that it is a likely impossibility for most cases. They can be produced one of three ways. (1) As a 1st generation prooflike from fresh dies. In that case, they exist or don't based on whether the clash occurred at the very beginning of the production life of the die pair. (2) As a 2nd generation prooflike where the clash occurred very shortly after both dies were repolished. Again, this is a matter of historical timing of the clash. It either happened then or not and thus exists in this state or cannot possibly. (3) The dies were repolished following the clash leaving at least traces of the clash to authenticate the variety/state. In the last case, the population will be small but commensurate with those of prooflikes in that state, with or with clashes. The first two, however, will be fractions of those populations depending on how far into the PL strikes the clash occurred.

I have one of the third case for the 1878 VAM-84A. It is the 65PL in my NGC (collectors-society.com) B1 reverse set. This is the first of this VAM I have heard of and is very innteresting and I want to know more. Are the PL characteristics blanced and full on both sides or dominant on one? Are there repolishing signs? There absolutely must be if this is a VAM-1A. Have parts of the clash been polished away and to what extent? Check the date position and the position of the BER clash to make sure it is a VAM-1A and not a new, unknown VAM -- especially if you see no signs of repolishing. Lastly, even though it is a stretch, examine it carefully for signs of buffing/whizzing/.... I'd be more concerned about that with a raw coin. NGC would have examined this one pretty carefully I am sure.

Sorry if there are already answers in the thread, which I will now read. Just wanted to reply first as this is a very important find to me. Again, an excellent coin discovery.

Wolf359 · January 22, 2006 11:45PM

Well, well the thought it was new to was eliminated when I viewed the photos, as it looks
like my 1A. (I've owned a couple). Can't tell from here if it's (1) new die pair or (2) repolished....sharply
struck coin though.

I don't think it's new...the date, mintmark and location of the clash, and E all match
1A.

Here's a teletrade 1A

After seeing this coin, I think my want list just expanded by one.

ziggy29 · January 23, 2006 12:00AM

<< <i>Here's a teletrade 1A >>

That Teletrade coin looks seriously undergraded to me...there looks like too much luster for a 45, and I don't think there should be that much breast feather detail on an XF-45 O-mint Morgan. Looks like about an AU-53 to me...maybe even a 55. An obvious crackout candidate.

Coxe · January 23, 2006 12:22AM

Yes, Jack. That does appear to be a 1A. (I hadn't read the thread before originally replying to the initial post. Saw the pics now.) It is indeed exceptionally struck for a New Orleans dollar of the date and an important factor for a variety like this as well. As most of us know, 86-O in PL is a rare and desirable coin in its own right, particularly a true two-sided PL. If the coin is kept and available, I will probably ask to photograph it for my book at some point.

If this is a first generation PL, it changes things fundamentally. It would mean that the dies actually differ from the common VAM-1 or that common VAM-1 is the late repolished state of clashed dies. The possibility of it being a 1st gen PL is remote in my expectations. I need to examine my 86-O DMPL; I forget if it is a VAM-1.

Isn't this VAM stuff fun?! (....even if it kinda llike work.)

messydesk · January 23, 2006 12:39AM

<< <i>Fascinating purchase. Anyone who knows prooflikes and clashes understands they are not two things that should go together. They make for such an exotic condition that it is a likely impossibility for most cases. They can be produced one of three ways. (1) As a 1st generation prooflike from fresh dies. In that case, they exist or don't based on whether the clash occurred at the very beginning of the production life of the die pair. (2) As a 2nd generation prooflike where the clash occurred very shortly after both dies were repolished. Again, this is a matter of historical timing of the clash. It either happened then or not and thus exists in this state or cannot possibly. (3) The dies were repolished following the clash leaving at least traces of the clash to authenticate the variety/state. In the last case, the population will be small but commensurate with those of prooflikes in that state, with or with clashes. The first two, however, will be fractions of those populations depending on how far into the PL strikes the clash occurred.

I have one of the third case for the 1878 VAM-84A. It is the 65PL in my NGC (collectors-society.com) B1 reverse set. This is the first of this VAM I have heard of and is very innteresting and I want to know more. Are the PL characteristics blanced and full on both sides or dominant on one? Are there repolishing signs? There absolutely must be if this is a VAM-1A. Have parts of the clash been polished away and to what extent? Check the date position and the position of the BER clash to make sure it is a VAM-1A and not a new, unknown VAM -- especially if you see no signs of repolishing. Lastly, even though it is a stretch, examine it carefully for signs of buffing/whizzing/.... I'd be more concerned about that with a raw coin. NGC would have examined this one pretty carefully I am sure. >>

I have an 1878 VAM 84 that I'm pretty sure is not an 84A, and it's a DMPL coin (I can't check it this week). Things like die cracks and even flow lines can be used to "age" a die, so it should be easy to tell, given these two coins as well as non PL VAM 84s when the clash occurred. If there are non-PL specimens without the clash, it could be that the clash was polished or eroded away, leaving a clash-free coin that is a later die state than the one with the clash.

I also have a 1902-O VAM 12 that is DMPL and clashed, although not with a letter transfer. This pretty obviously falls into the first category of PL clashes you refer to -- two new DMPL dies clash and only the devices attenuate the reflectivity.

One thing that I don't know is if the polishing procedure was the same for a die in service as it was in the final preparation stages. I was under the assumption that they weren't, and that a die being polished while in service was not going to be prooflike, but rather have lots of coarse polishing lines on it if gouges were to be ground off (see 1921-S Thornhead, 1882 O/S VAM 3, others) in haste to get the die back into service. Moreover, the branch mints didn't even do the die preparation, so they may not have even been able to buff dies to a high sheen, even if they wanted to.

Back to the 86-O VAM 1A. Remember that a VAM number refers to a discernably unique die pair. There may be several die pairs for 1886-O VAM 1, but they are indiscernable from each other by a collector with a 10x loupe looking at photographs. One such die pair was doomed to be clashed Chicago voting-style -- early and often. Since it is known that there are specimens with 1, 2, and 7 clashes, and that they have known different rarities, it would be useful for them to be classified as VAMs 1A1, 1A2, and 1A3, similarly to now the 1921-S VAM 1Bx series is classified, but that would be Leroy's call, and not mine.

Stuart · January 23, 2006 1:15AM

I appreciate all of the great posts in this thread, and sincerely thank those of you who have posted for sharing your expert level of VAM experience with us in this thread.

I am busy at work today, and will try to review these posts and reply with some comments and observations on this coin later tonight, when I will have some time to devote to this interesting subject.

Coxe · January 23, 2006 1:27AM

The key is "discernably unique" in your reply. Leroy will and has assigned a new VAM (and die designations) when a coin can be shown to have been produced from distinctly different dies. The goal is primarily to catalogue all mint die combinations used. If several are currently all called VAM-1, they will be eventually ferretted out as separate VAMs. New VAM designations for die states is where Leroy needs to and does discriminate. It would be nice to see something like the Thornheads subclassifications aplied to this VAM as well as others like Scarface.

Yes, flow lines and cracks can be used to determine progressive die usage. They are often difficult to discern though from internet images, espcially when polishing might be a factor.

As for the prooflike status of repolished dies, already in service, that was a debated topic years ago when PLs were first getting official notice and pricing. There were also considerations on whether a coin coin be PL if it was poorly struck but reflective. There are many dates with those 2nd gen PLs that appear every bit as PL at arm's length and reveal polishing upon close inspection. There wasn't a rebasining, but polishing did occur and I don't believe using the original technique (at least most of the time).

lava · January 23, 2006 1:57AM

I checked my small hoard of 86-o pls and none of them are like your coin Stuart.

The good news is I opened a box I hadn't seen for a while and found lots of rare pls - 83-s, 84-s, 92-0, 93, 82 o/s, etc., in ANACS holders or NGC holders. So I feel like your gain was my gain too.

kenmitch · January 23, 2006 2:13AM

Very sweet looking coin....PL brings out the E very nicely

Coxe · January 23, 2006 2:22AM

Lava, that is one helluva string of PL dates in your box. In holders at that! Which O/S is yours? I have a VAM-5EDS DMPL. Been looking for a suitable 83-S PL. Underbid a few over the years and find most others either one-sided or nearly semi-PL.

Stuart · January 23, 2006 3:30AM

Lava: I am pleased that you have discovered found some additional forgotten "buried treasure" through this 1886-O VAM 1A discovery process. This will be a fun story for me to follow-up. I am glad that I made this purchase at this weekend's coin show!!

<< The good news is I opened a box I hadn't seen for a while and found lots of rare pls - 83-s, 84-s, 92-0, 93, 82 o/s, etc., in ANACS holders or NGC holders. So I feel like your gain was my gain too. >>

Stuart · January 23, 2006 11:23AM

Coxe, Jack, Lava, and John: In reply to the quote below, I would be pleased to e-mail you higher resolution photos of this coin than I can post with the 50 KByte limitation, if you would PM me with your preferred e-mail address.

This coin appears to me to be an early strike from very strongly clashed dies, because I can even see some of the reverse wreath features on the obverse, and most of the deeper inset obverse features on the reverse, including a portion Miss Liberty's eye as raised metal on the reverse.

<< They are often difficult to discern though from internet images, espcially when polishing might be a factor. >>

morganvamclashie · February 27, 2006 11:46AM

I realize I am coming in very late on this discussion, but I am new to this board site. The combination of PL characteristics on clashed varieties is quite rare. That this is a single clash example also suggests this coin being in the earliest die stage of the VAM 1A. Very few of the single clashed examples around. There are a few examples of the 1891 O VAM 1A that have been found in PL condition as well.

For those of you who are real fans of some spectacular contrast in clashed varieties look for the 1904 O VAM28A (SUPER CD). It has a clashed "G" from the reverse 'GOD' found next to Miss Liberty's neck on the obverse. It can be found in DMPL condition and is stunning. The "G" can be seen as this coin is both clashed and rotated, and the dies clashed very early in their production run.

MAD4MORGANS · February 27, 2006 1:02PM

EWWWWW...AHHHHHHH!!!

New Purchase: 1886-O NGC AU-58 (PL) Morgan Dollar -- VAM 1A - Top 100 - "E" Clash Mark --

Comments

Leave a Comment

New Purchase: 1886-O NGC AU-58 (PL) Morgan Dollar -- VAM 1A - Top 100 - &quot;E&quot; Clash Mark --

Comments

Leave a Comment

New Purchase: 1886-O NGC AU-58 (PL) Morgan Dollar -- VAM 1A - Top 100 - "E" Clash Mark --