These newly attributed doubled dies are not universally recognized yet by major holdering companies, meaning you typically will have to ask for attribution and pay extra for that, if you believe you have found and want to slab them. Also, you probably will need a loupe or microscope to see them. But they have been listed on Wexler’s and Variety Vista sites. You can explore the markers for both coins there.
Normally, Proxiblog does not acknowledge these minor errors. Since the Mint uses a single-squeeze hubbing process, meant to eliminate doubled dies, they still can occur when working dies are not properly aligned or when a defect in the die is not immediately recognized.
But these two doubled dies are being found and sold regularly on eBay and other venues. So we will explore them here.
2024 DDO CENT
Both the 2024 and 2024-D have ghost images of a double ear. The 2024 is the most prominent:
You will want to view the date with a loupe or microscope and pay close attention to the second “2” and “4” with less visible doubling on the first “2” and “4”:
You also will find doubling the first four letters of “Trust”:
Again, you can see other minor markers of this variety on Wexler’s and Variety Vista.
2024-D DDO CENT
If you use a coin microscope, you should be able to see doubling on the date, although the led lights can magnify the spread, as in the example below:
There is also a faint ghost image of a doubled ear.
The other markers also are faint. Check Wexler’s or Variety Vista for those.
“Sold” values for the 2024 and 2024-D DDO on eBay generally sell for $10 to $30 in circulated or uncertified uncirculated condition. If the double ear is prominent on a high-grade 2024-D DDR, sellers are getting between $35 and $50.
Do not buy or bid on any of these new doubled dies unless you clearly see the main markers. Many being offered lack them, using high grade 2024 and 2024-D Cents and erroneously stating they are doubled dies.
If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.
For the veterans looking for specific classes of doubled dies, here are nine with illustrations. While it is important to know these, beginners are discouraged from trying to learn these via memorization. They should access the three main types of doubling. That said, they might still want to see the visuals to grasp all the types of hub doubling creating varieties in coin collecting.
Values of the above depend on rarity and condition. Check PCGS CoinFacts for particulars.
If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.
If you are wondering why there are not many true doubled dies in modern coinage, there is a very good reason. In 1996, the US Mint replaced multi-press hubbing methods with the single-squeeze process. A highly polished, master steel hub with a raised version of the coin design presses its devices into a cone-shaped planchet in one humongous strike.
Here’s a video of the coin production process.
In effect, this new hubbing process was meant to eliminate embarrassing doubled die errors like the famous 1955 DDO Cent.
Despite the ultra-modern coining machinery, an extreme doubled die occurred with the 2009-D District of Columbia Doubled Die Reverse (DDR) quarter. Reason? Human error.
During production the master hub was misaligned and minted blanks at an uneven angle. Every coin struck by that die had the error. It is listed as the Fivaz-Stanton FS-801 variety.
The dramatic doubling occurred on the reverse with a clear “ELL” split under the name “ELLINGTON.”
The first few black and white keys of the piano also are doubled.
Using a loupe or microscope, you also can see raised outlines Duke Ellington’s hand.
Because the 2009-D Quarter is easily overlooked in pocket change, you might miss this fabled modern doubled die. PCGS CoinFacts missed it in using an MS67 example for the regular coin that also happened to be the doubled die.
Out of the total mintage of88,800,000 coins, the DDR variety represents a small fraction. Still between 100,000-250,000 are believed to have left the Mint.
Values depend on condition. A circulated example in pocket change usually brings about $10-25 on eBay. Uncirculated and graded gems can being $50; super gems, in the hundreds.
If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.
Prompting this article is a counterfeit 1878-CC that was previously listed to eBay and quickly removed. All 1878cc have B reverses, otherwise known as the “2nd reverse” with parallel arrow feathers (rather than slanted).
As a refresher, here are both kinds.
In addition, the 1878-CC has a different type of mintmark from other CC years, excluding some 1880cc varieties.
Compare mintmarks with the 1879-CC Morgan, which has slanted tail feathers.
Now inspect the 1878-CC coin below.
Looking through my log of documented counterfeit reverses for Morgan Dollars I realize I’ve seen this one a few times. The “Doubled wreath reverse.” If any of these were genuine they would be some of more dramatic doubled dies of the series, which evident by this 1878cc that isn’t the case.
Now to the real meat and potatoes of this article! An 1881-CC that was posted to a Facebook coin group for determination of value and authenticity. Being that 1881-CC has a low mintage of a mere 296,000 coins, there are very few die marriages. Only VAM-2 and VAM-6 has a CC tilted left, clearly this coin doesn’t attribute to either die marriage. (To learn about VAMs, click here.)
It does match the reverse of the previous 1878cc!
Below see a comparison image of both the 1878 and 1881-CC reverses. The “doubled wreath” stands out clearly. Along with a few repeating circulation marks, one being a minor indent on the wreath and another in the field below the right star.
After a lengthy conversation with the individual who owns the coin, they couldn’t come to terms that it was a very modern counterfeit. I’m sure our readers will see this coin is clearly unattributable to a genuine die marriage and matches a known counterfeit.
The best way to guard against buying a counterfeit coin is to purchase an authentic one from a reputable dealer. Barring that, view Jack Young’s Jack Riley’s and my articles on counterfeit coins published by Proxiblog.
If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has more than a thousand friends and followers on Facebook Coin Groups and thousands more across YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.
Clash marks are valuable, but people often try to mimic them with a vise, pressing two coins together. Other times, for one reason or another, glue creates an impression of one coin on another. Do not bid on any of these until you can tell them apart. As you might imagine, eBay and online auctions often label vise and glue coins as clash marks.
Here are all three:
You can easily distinguish them by looking for specific tells under a loupe or magnifying glass. You want to check if the extra impression is raised or sunken, and whether the lettering is oriented normally or backwards. If backward, you’re looking at a vise or glue coin.
TYPE
CLASH MARKS
VISE COIN
GLUE COIN
RELIEF
Raised Devices
Sunken Devices
Flat Layered
ORIENTATION
Normal
Backward/Reversed
Backward/Reversed
THICKNESS
Normal
Flat/Distorted
Thick/Sticky
A die clash happens at the Mint when erroneously the obverse and reverse dies strike each other without a blank planchet between them. The so-called “ghost” image will be raised, not sunken or flatly layered.
Vise coins are created by pressing two coins together with a vise or hammering them to mimic the clashed die. Because of the method, the lettering will be backward, flattened, distorted or damaged, especially by the rims.
A glue coin happens any number of ways when two coins are bonded by an adhesive. When separated, the ghost image appears flat and layered on the other coin.
Often the tone of the coin will be altered with a dried or amber look, as you might anticipate with glue. True, flat and layered can be confused with raised of a die clash. To be sure, dip the coin in acetone and the ghost will dissolve.
Sometimes people use a vise to create weird patterns, thinking those unfamiliar with how coins are minted will consider this an error or variety.
You’ll find many more examples of vise and glue coins on Facebook because few people know how to tell these apart from clashed dies. They find them in rolls, typically, because someone realized this wasn’t a mint error.
Sometimes glue takes strange shapes. Again, you need to know how coins are made to understand how this could never happen at the Mint.
Depending on the condition of the coin and the denomination, because clashed dies, vise jobs and glue coins happen across denominations, values vary from minor examples $30 to major ones in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and other social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.
Today’s feature subject- the Trifecta all over again; counterfeit 1882-CC Morgan $, counterfeit PCGS slab, and counterfeit PCGS CN “authentication” website.
This article documents what is happening to our hobby. It is important for every collector to know what is happening on eBay and other venues with counterfeit coins, slabs and websites.
So, let’s start with the current one. I notified PCGS about this 1882-CC Morgan. As I have noted previously I use eBay for new material to write counterfeit articles on, and eBay apparently remembers me and my dumpster dive searches! The following is one page of a series of “inspiring” Bay offerings that came up the other day:
So the 1882-CC looked different and I thought worth taking a deeper dive on (notice the similar looking 1880-CC to the right as well). The original listing:
I have seen many odd listings on the Bay, but this one is notable. Starting with not-PCGS label the nomenclature seems bizarre; I have never seen a genuine one with the word “America” on it, making me think of others with “Morgan” on the label! And I had no clue what the “LM” and “Y” designations stands for; turns out they are attributions for Chinese coins!
The barcode doesn’t scan, the cert number doesn’t exist in the true PCGS database, and the gold shield looks like a child’s coloring book effort.
The seller shows front and back images and then a raw one on a scale while stating “With NFC C” for whatever that is supposed to mean.
And an old friend, “slash” the eagle! And where do you suppose the scale came from?
So bad cert #:
So, what about the reverse QR code? With that many “cn’s” in the address where do you suppose it will lead?
So a note for reference- the site we exposed at the beginning of the year was entirely different and was taken down quickly after notifying my contacts at PCGS and reporting on Proxiblog:
And the new site and images:
And like the previous site there is a “TrueView” type image to aid with authentication…
A little pricy to me at the time as I had 2 others going through the eBay refund/ return process then. Interestingly, both of them were reported through the Bay AI reporting process and came back AOK, but when I posted each on my Face Book sites and stated I bought one, they suddenly were removed along with the sellers…
So I reported this one and the bogus site to my contacts at PCGS and then posted on my personal FB page:
And poof, both the seller and listing were removed from the Bay…
From my post one can see there are Chinese coins included, as I went through the effort to find other ‘coins” on the site. Many CC Morgans and even more CN coins including this example:
Notice the cert #, 66259150 and the subject example, 66259979- each cert # in-between these shows another counterfeit. It goes on and on…
And an image of the ones I screen printed:
Saved images from the bad website
A true nightmare IMHO.
And the story continues, as after the subject listing and seller “disappeared”, more showed up to the party.
2 new sellers with the same appearing stuff, they now state “with grading box”.
I looked at the 1880-CC, and it matched the website examples but decided to purchase the 1882-CC.
And what about seller feedback? WOW, I didn’t know there was even such a thing as counterfeit perfume!
Yep, I took the chance of submitting feedback before receiving the item, so we will see how that worked for me.
And I did also report the 1880-CC, but both of these and the website are still up.
And eBay’s responses to both reports:
eBay’s report response states made by a “customer service agent” in both cases!
And the 1882-CC seller’s response to my feedback? Well, like another seller he cancelled my order stating I requested the cancellation.
And he added to the negative feedback chain and asked I contact them “directly to discuss”:
And an interesting anecdote, Paula Bluhm found a Chinese coin with the variety nomenclature used on this “Morgan” counterfeit! (Maybe a viewer can help with the Y and LM designations.)
I actually tried to purchase another one from the same seller, but he cancelled it after I paid for it; I was refunded by eBay.
And a 6-18 update- more sellers of these counterfeits hit the Bay, and they must have read my negative feedback and now obstruct the reverse QR code!
I purchased an 1880-CC, so we will see what I receive.
If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack D. Young, Jack Riley and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups and across social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.
Everyone knows that Chinese counterfeits have flooded the coin market with some production estimates exporting between 100,000 to 500,000 counterfeit coins per month. The majority of these are offered as raw coins on eBay, Etsy and Temu, among others. But now a new threat has emerged: sellers offering counterfeits in fake PCGS holders with phony “Not PCGS” certification sites.
This is a much-overlooked consequence because it attacks the fundamental priority of top holdering companies: authentication.
These fakes pop up when you try to access PCGS. To show how frequent, I now will access the site and report the results in 10 minutes of searching.
These are from different sellers. I could have published a dozen or more.
When viewing counterfeit “Not PCGS” coins on eBay, you’ll see that sellers have few sales. Never bid or buy from such sellers. Nevertheless, that is not the lesson here. It is the erosion of the reputation of the top holdering companies in the hobby.
While we cannot do anything about Chinese fakes, we can ask eBay to listen more closely to our messages and reports about counterfeits and perhaps fix their algorithm and provide more education for their customer service employees.
To be fair, eBay has honored many of our complaints about counterfeit coins. It has forced sellers to reimburse buyers of counterfeit coins. We know that.
But the issue now is the proliferation of counterfeits in fake PCGS holders. An algorithm or customer service employee may see that famous logo and–ironically!–believe the listing is authentic because … wait for it … it trusts PCGS’s reputation.
That is why counterfeiters are using fake PCGS holders, playing off of PCGS’s good name. They also play off the good name of top auction houses like GreatCollections with fake stickers.
Every hobbyist needs to know counterfeit detection. Click here for that. Here is a visual primer on how you, too, can identify counterfeit coins in fake PCGS holders:
Our concern here focuses on the hobby and the ramifications of using fake PCGS holders to fool hobbyists into thinking they have a genuine coin.
While many hobbyists have complained about counterfeits, the conventional wisdom is disappointing: nothing can be done because the Chinese government allows this as part of its economy.
That thinking results in defeatism. If nothing can be done, then the hobby is at risk. But that risk is becoming greater each day. If eBay in particular does little when informed about counterfeits, because (a) its algorithm cannot detect a fake based on die markers and (b) its customer service may not be schooled enough to know those markers, seeing only a slabbed PCGS coin; then (c) the corporate reputation of PCGS is at issue.
This is an article about that premise. eBay can argue that it has invested $X amount of dollars in counterfeit detection and even has customer service employees check listings when multiple complaints have been lodged; but if both are proving at many occasions ineffective, that is not a strong defense when it comes to PCGS. It only means that eBay’s methods need enhancement.
These are matters beyond the scope of this article.
Stephanie Sabin, president of PCGS, is aware of the ongoing issue.
She provided Proxiblog with this statement:
“Since founding PCGS in 1986, our mission has been to protect collectors through leading authentication, grading, and the most secure holders in the industry. However, a powerful brand inevitably attracts counterfeiters, and we treat combating these fraudulent holders as an aggressive, ongoing priority. True security requires staying multiple steps ahead, which is why we continually invest in advanced overt and covert security features across all our product lines. We applaud the dedicated individuals and organizations within our community who work tirelessly to educate collectors on the dangers of counterfeit holders; their vigilance to eliminate altered and fraudulent collectibles is essential to protecting consumers and preserving the integrity of the numismatic marketplace. By combining their grassroots educational initiatives with our ongoing technical innovations and strengthened marketplace partnerships, we will continue to build a safer, more secure hobby for all.”
In recent years, Chinese counterfeiters have upped the ante, targeting PCGS, often cited as the most reliable and top holdering company. Not only are the coins fake; the holders are too. And the certs open to a fake PCGS authentication site.
Proxiblog’s Jack Young, Jack Riley and Michael Bugeja have been monitoring the proliferation of “Not PCGS” counterfeit coins.
In January, Jack Young wrote, “As if the Chinese counterfeit coins in fake PCGS slabs isn’t bad enough, now there appears to be a fake Chinese PCGS website to verify them.”
Young identified this counterfeit:
Of course he checked the cert and found no similar or other coin. His next step was to try to read the reverse label QR code. He got this:
A fake coin. A fake holder. A fake site. (If you are interested in the complete article about this fake coin and site, click here.) Jack Young has found that this trifecta is happening again.
He has found two more sellers that offer fake coins in fake PCGS holders with certs going to a fake PCGS site.
Jack Young says “Michael and I have been discussing what I have termed the ‘proliferation’ of counterfeit coins using stolen PCGS Intellectual Property, fake ‘PCGS’ holders on eBay. I see all of the listings ‘allowed’ there as a huge failing of eBay. And their AI reporting process is also an apparent failure to many collectors and hobbyists as well.
“So, going forward I use eBay for new material to write counterfeit articles on, and today’s usual browse of ‘US Coins’ on the Bay resulted in 44 counterfeit coins in fake PCGS slabs listed on just the 1st page. I screen-printed a number but quite frankly got tired of the effort after documenting these below.”
Snippet of the 44 listings available on 1-page of eBay US Coin listings 6-11-26
The frustration with eBay stems from counterfeit experts using the eBay reporting system only to be told that the fraudulent listing is fine and nothing will be done. Example:
But it gets worse. Jack Young has been warned about reporting counterfeit coins on eBay, further damaging its supposed defense that it vets all reports of fake offerings on the platform. Example:
Because of the proliferation of “Not PCGS” counterfeits, Jack Young and Proxiblog have received or seen requests on Facebook coin groups to check if an actual authentic PCGS coin is, well, authentic!
In sum, scam sellers acting in effect as agents of Chinese counterfeiters are eroding the very heart of what top holdering companies do: authenticate.
The question now, of course, is what can be done collectively.
Jack Young and I have contacts at PCGS, which has encouraged us to report fake offerings and to do one more thing: inform the company if eBay refuses to take action. But that will hardly fix the problem. The issue at hand is what can be done when popular platforms like eBay get it wrong at the expense of its bidders and holdering companies.
That will have to be decided by others.
Proxiblog can help by continuing to grow our subscriber base and influence on Facebook. Jack Young and Jack Riley also have large spheres of influence. But we need the American Numismatic Association, the U.S. Mint and the National Coin and Bullion Association to understand this new threat of corporate reputation and to break the defeatism that nothing can be done.
Let’s review legalities:
Counterfeiting or knowingly passing fake coins is a federal crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison and severe fines. The U.S. Secret Service investigates all suspected counterfeit coins.
The creation, sale and distribution (pertinent here) of fake coins can be prosecuted under United States Codes:
Manufacturing and Forging (18 U.S. Code § 485): Falsely making, forging, or counterfeiting any coin (valued higher than 5 cents) or any gold or silver bar is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and substantial fines.
Passing or Possessing (18 U.S. Code § 485): Passing, selling or bringing counterfeit coins into the United States with the intent to defraud carries a penalty of up to5 years in prison.
There is also the Hobby Protection Act, which states, it is illegal to buy, sell or possess counterfeit coins. Moreover, all replica, copy or imitation numismatic items must be plainly and permanently marked with the word “COPY”.
Jack Young, Michael Bugeja and Proxiblog subscribers have encountered sellers who bought a counterfeit coin, are reselling it as genuine and refuse to take it down.
We present one example here, but we encounter this regularly.
Here are exchanges by Bugeja and subscriber Tim Scott, trying fruitlessly with eBay to take down this obvious fake. Our complaints were ignored by eBay.
Despite our concerns, shared across Facebook coin groups, the fake coin in a fake PCGS holder sold for $607.33. You can see it had 24 bids.
We thank Stephanie Sabin and PCGS for helping us safeguard their reputation and our hobby.
If you like posts like this, please go to our counterfeit archive with reports from Jack Riley, Jack D. Young, John Lorenzo and Michael Bugeja. Also, please subscribe so you be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.
Key date coins are a target for counterfeiters with a large profit to be made, but what about common date coins? Well, nothing is safe!
This article doesn’t focus on a connected “family,” rather a specific coin. This Bicentennial Eisenhower Dollar was previously shared in a Facebook group and many were shocked to learn that it is in fact counterfeit!
One may notice at a glance many raised “lumps” across the obverse fields and a large tell of the distended letters primary in “One Dollar”.
This surely isn’t a “one off” piece. I haven’t found a second example of one surface since this one so additional repeating marks are inconclusive. I suspect the diagonal notch through “trust” will be seen on all examples using this obverse.
Why would China counterfeit a common dollar like this?
Many hobbyists think that a high value of a coin makes it a candidate for counterfeiters. Counterfeiters take advantage of this false sense of security. The coin here probably was part of a complete set that someone purchased, realized the deception, and used or sold.
It costs about a dime to a quarter to make these dollars. Sell one, even for a dollar, and you have a substantial profit.
If you like posts like this, please go to our counterfeit archive with reports from Jack Riley, Jack D. Young, John Lorenzo and Michael Bugeja. Also, please subscribe so you be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.
While new hobbyists typically search for the unicorns–1992/92-D Close AM cents–veteran collectors know that chances are infinitely better looking for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 Wide AM varieties.
If you are interested in the 1992/92-D Close AM cents, click here. This post is about the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Wide AM varieties, all from the Philadelphia Mint.
In 1994, the U.S. Mint developed rules for Lincoln Memorial Cents. Business strikes were supposed to use a “Close AM” reverse die. Proof coins would use the “Wide AM” reverse die.
Between 1998-200, two US Mints produced business strikes for cents, Philadelphia and Denver. At the Philly facility, coin operators mistakenly used a “Wide AM” reverse die on some of the production runs.
There are three markers to discern what you have.
Let’s dissect each of these.
Now let’s compare with the regular correct business strikes:
Values for these varieties depend on the coin’s condition and color (Brown, Red-Brown, or Red).
Here are mintage estimates and values for each year:
YEAR
ESTIMATED VARIETY MINTAGE
RANGE OF VALUES
1998
100,000
$25 to $150, Lower Mint State
1999
2,000
$400 to $1,000+, Lower Mint State
2000
200,000+
$15 to $35, Lower Mint State
Do not purchase raw Wide AM 1998-2000 cents unless you know the markers. Almost every raw example on eBay has the wrong markers (Close AM) for the rare 1999 cent. Examples:
There are true “unicorn” coins, theorized but never found, including the 1964 Morgan Dollar and the 1965 Kennedy Half on a 1964 90% Silver Planchet. You can add the 1998-D Wide AM, 1999-D Wide AM and 2000-D Wide AM to that list.
ALL of the several 1998-D, 1999-D and 2000-D Cents on eBay listed as “Wide AM” are just regular “Close AM” cents. Example:
If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.
Grease or debris, coupled with die deterioration, causes a filled mintmark, evidenced on many coins, including Morgan dollars. But the “1921-S VAM 6B, Filled S” dollar is special because the mintmark has a flaw in the die as well as a gouge on the obverse.
Before we delve into this variety, we need to define some terms, beginning with VAMs, initials of numismatists Van Allen and Mallis who cataloged die varieties of U.S. Morgan and Peace silver dollars.
As noted earlier, the specific die marker for this coin is: VAM 6B.
In addition to the filled “S” mintmark, the 1921-S variety has a die gouge on the obverse, making it more valuable than a regular issue.
A die gouge can be mistaken at times for a die crack. So we have to define those, too.
Die gouges occur when a foreign object is dragged across the die face, allowing metal to fill the divot, resulting in a raised area. Sometimes the dragged object creates a line, as in the 1921-S VAM 6B dollar. It may appear like a die crack. The difference is a gouge is created by that foreign object whereas a die crack results from pressure during the striking process.
Here’s an example:
Now that we know those terms, we can discuss the die markers of the 1921-S VAM 6B.
Let’s look at the filled S mintmark first:
The filled mintmark of this Morgan variety differs from a grease strike because the “S” also exhibits a flaw in the die, distorting the S. Compare:
Now let’s look closely at the die gouge:
Not all die gouges are straight lines as here. In this case, the dragged object caused the line.
This particular variety carries a unique number in the PCGS catalogue (412698) from which these photos have been taken.
PCGS CoinFacts also lists values for this variety. Compare the prices with a regular 1921-S:
As you can see, the higher the grade on this variety, the more valuable.
While you may not be interested in this Morgan, going through the die markers here–or any VAM–will help you learn more about the minting process.
If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.
