“Say wot?”, you’re thinking about now, right? Hehehe.. Well, this will hopefully be the first in a series of Articles to the Members, based on little unknown or uncared-for tidbits of info we’ve picked up over the years about the Morgan Dollar. And lookee here: It’s all FREE too. LOL

For example, did you ever strain your eyeballs trying to see if  that 1880 Morgan in your hand is a *possible* overdate or no? Why?? Especially when it’s so easy to tell at a glance (providing the coin’s not worn down to dime’s thickness, of course.. hehe)  if it just *might* be a keeper…

First off, look at the date.. through a dealer’s case even. If it  looks like the “18” is stronger than the rest of the date (the “80”), you just might have a shot.

Next thing ya does (after picking the coin up, of course..) is zero in on the 2nd 8 in the date. Or to be more specific, the Upper loop of same. Got it? Okay… Now swing your eyeball or loop or Coke  bottle or maggie-glass or whatever ya use to blow things up (NO,NO, NO.. Never use C4..) over to the left side of the loop. What you now look for is what can be best described as a division symbol. ..You do remember what that was from Math 101 don’t ya?? It kinda looks like this: v----- with the dashes moved up to the top right of the 'v', ok?

Whether you believe it or no, each and every 1880 overdate shows the remains of a 79 atop that pair of numerals. Period; End of Story; and Nuff Sed already!!! (Sing, fat lady, Sing) Class Dismissed…

Okay class.. Settle down now. Today we're gonna take a closer look at the first die combo used in 1878, the variety known as a VAM 9. Ever wonder why so many of them have been found from such the small number originally struck, and why the majority of these are heavily circulated? 

Try this on for size:

One can say with a certainty that the VAM 9's Reverse die failed within a few short minutes of pounding out coins, based on records of the day, as stated in the VAM Book. If you look on page 84, you'll note that a delivery of 303 coins was made to Director of the Mint Linderman on March 12th, as per his instructions; and yet, in error. Truth is, the man only wanted THE First ones, but due to a misunderstanding of his request, he got  the whole ball of wax!!

Now for the length of time it took to make them: It's well documented that the Mint's presses were able to strike Dollars at a rate of 80 a minute, as reported in a local newspaper. Quick now, let's see some hands: "How much time did it take to make those 300 coins?" Yup.. Minutes! And then the Reverse Die (and more than likely, the Collar too) went POOF! (While you're mulling that over, we're gonna go get us a cup of coffee.. be rite back.)

         Ah.. that was good. Now where were we? Oh Yeah.. How come, you ask, if  there were that few VAM 9's made oh so long ago, why are there now so many of them being found today? The answer is logical and simple: There hadn't been a large Silver coin around in so many years that everyone wanted to 'save one for the kiddies'; Even the first 100 Proofs also made that first day went so fast that 100 more had to be made 3 days later. Think about it. 

Let's start a little controversy this time out about those 'repunched date in denticles' VAM varieties... are they really that? Or are 
they in fact something else entirely? (And no we're not suggesting that they are just polishing marks or die chips or anything like that.)

Logic dictates that in order to have dies with the correct date on them ready for production (on say for example), January 1st 1880, they had to be readied late in 1879, at the very same time dies were being made for that, the current year of production. Without squinting at the tiny reversed date on each die to figure out what it read, how else might a worker tell which was the correctly dated die to use? Why not just look at it? Not the design date, but the DIE date...

A completed Obverse die is/was roughly the same diameter as the finished product, having been milled or turned-down from the original diameter of the shank of same; to which a date was added. Logic dictates that to steady an engraver's hand as he punched in the date, there was still small outer 'shelf' around the die that could be milled off before the final annealing. If so, why not punch in a readable date in that area that was NOT Mirrored like the die's was?

Depending on how wide this 'shelf' (which could always be milled down to correct diameter before final annealing) was, a full date could be punched in that was easy to read, etc., without affecting the design. Unless of course the margin was tight or the engraver's hand slipped, etc.. in which case that particular die ended up with a (You got it) "Repunched Date". Now, do we have a wild imagination or what?