Any ideas about this coin? I see a small cc on the O

[Travis Hale]

Please be frank 

[Mohawk]

Hi Travis,

I'm definitely not seeing it.....just the usual oval O one sees on New Orleans Morgans of this era. 

[Travis Hale]

Thank you much 

[MorganMan]

Don't see any signs of a "cc". Sorry.

What a 1881 CC should look like.

 

 

 

[MAULEMALL]

There is a VAM 5 which is o/s I believe...

[Travis Hale]

I tried to take a better picture. If you use ir you can see 2 CC’s scrubbed off under the O

[USAuPzlBxBob]

Oh, you mean that "CC."

Nope!  Not seeing it, either.  

But, what would be your premise?

Somebody would take a $400 coin and manipulate it into an $80 coin.

Or the Mint was just "fooling around" that day, and wondered what would happen if they, um, if they… uhhh… you got me.  

[Travis Hale]

No, the New Orleans Mint took the left over Carson City coins when they stopped minting & a lot of times just stAmped an O over the cc. It’s on google...

[Mohawk]

58 minutes ago, Travis Hale said:

No, the New Orleans Mint took the left over Carson City coins when they stopped minting & a lot of times just stAmped an O over the cc. It’s on google...

This is true, but there is no record of that happening in 1881.  As far as I know, the only time this actually happened was for 1900 dated coinage, resulting in the 1900-O/CC varieties, which is the only date known for an O/CC in the Morgan Dollar series.  This happened after 1893, when Carson City closed for good.  In 1881, both New Orleans and Carson City needed reverse dies, so an 1881-O/CC wouldn't be a likely occurrence.  I'm not saying it would have been impossible (the 1882 O/S shows that), but any such OMM would likely have been found and noted by now.  There are A LOT of Morgan Dollars collectors, and a lot of them search for VAM varieties, so Morgans are heavily searched.  I'm also still not seeing anything that looks like a CC on that coin.  In interpreting the available evidence, I'd say the 1900 O/CC is the only O/CC in the Morgan series.  Just because something happened once doesn't mean it happened many times.

[jgrinz]

Nope dont see the CC either but may see the crossing of the "S" in the middle of the "O" - tough to tell with phone cameras though

On 3/6/2019 at 10:00 PM, MorganMan said:

Don't see any signs of a "cc". Sorry.

What a 1881 CC should look like.

 

 

 

Sweet CC MM :-) - Frosty 

[Conder101]

5 hours ago, jgrinz said:

but may see the crossing of the "S" in the middle of the "O"

That would be a cherry as well because the O/S is 1882 not 1881.  At least I don't know of one.  On the other hand I am not really up on Morgan VAM's.

[jgrinz]

2 hours ago, Conder101 said:

That would be a cherry as well because the O/S is 1882 not 1881.  At least I don't know of one.  On the other hand I am not really up on Morgan VAM's.

Yep you are correct sir … that is 1882 … Must be the pictures. Thanks for the heads up

[MAULEMALL]

On 3/10/2019 at 7:09 AM, jgrinz said:

Yep you are correct sir … that is 1882 … Must be the pictures. Thanks for the heads up

http://ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com/wiki/1881-O_VAM-5

Used to be o over s now is said to be o over o