Banished from the Top 100
Forum rules
All posts to this forum must abide by the posting rules. Continued posting to any VAMWorld forum constitutes acceptance of the rules.
All posts to this forum must abide by the posting rules. Continued posting to any VAMWorld forum constitutes acceptance of the rules.
Banished from the Top 100
Once upon a time, the Top 100 Morgan dollars set at PCGS consisted of 100 coins.
But on April 25, 2005, the flagship set of VAM collecting became the Top 97 Registry Set at the largest third party grading company, when PCGS joined other major TPGs in deciding that the micro-O mintmark dates of 1896, 1900 and 1902 were counterfeits.
Some of us were amazed it took so long.
PCGS immediately stopped certifying the three dates. ANACS did likewise, but NGC had stopped five years earlier. This meant the combined 95 examples that were already in PCGS holders (26 1896-Os, 31 1900-Os, and 38 1902-Os) was all there would ever be.
But today the total is less, thanks to a “wanted to buy” effort by PCGS to get back as many examples as it could. It offered strong money for them, but didn’t get many takers.
Steps were also taken to purge evidence that the micro-Os had ever existed:
– All three were removed from the PCGS Top 100 Registry Set, which has consisted of just 97 coins ever since.
– All three were eliminated from the monthly PCGS Population Reports.
– Search links for their coin number prefixes became “dead” and still are.
Despite trying every way I could think of for years, I had not been able to find a way into the PCGS population database to see how many illicit micro-Os were still out there.
But last week a kindly rabbit gave me a magic key that unlocked a secret door: a link to a PCGS micro-O Showcase Set. Once inside, current population data was visible and I was able to assemble the summary table seen here:
For those of you who were not involved in VAMing in the 1990s and early-00s, the three micro-O dates were a literal treasure hunt. In fact, it tended to be a dumpster-diving treasure hunt, since many were found in melt buckets and bargain bins.
As someone who was there, two coins in this summary table jump out at me: the 1900 and 1902 in AU. If you’ve never seen one of the counterfeit micro-Os in such a high grade, be assured there is nothing that looks “right” about them.
It is no wonder that a submission of three (as I recall) strong AUs – one was an AU58 in my opinion that needed no loupe to yell “fake!” – finally set off the “wait just a minute!” alarm at PCGS.
Before then, the micro-Os had managed to hide in plain sight thanks to decent workmanship and often extensive circulation wear. For example, the average grade of the PCGS 1896-Os in this table is 26, the 1900-O average is 21, and the 1902-O average is just under 20.
Despite being kicked out of the Top 100 set at PCGS, their illicit origin and the embarrassment they caused among TPGs ensure they will always be favorites of VAM collectors. And they are still part of the official VAM Top 100 set.
But on April 25, 2005, the flagship set of VAM collecting became the Top 97 Registry Set at the largest third party grading company, when PCGS joined other major TPGs in deciding that the micro-O mintmark dates of 1896, 1900 and 1902 were counterfeits.
Some of us were amazed it took so long.
PCGS immediately stopped certifying the three dates. ANACS did likewise, but NGC had stopped five years earlier. This meant the combined 95 examples that were already in PCGS holders (26 1896-Os, 31 1900-Os, and 38 1902-Os) was all there would ever be.
But today the total is less, thanks to a “wanted to buy” effort by PCGS to get back as many examples as it could. It offered strong money for them, but didn’t get many takers.
Steps were also taken to purge evidence that the micro-Os had ever existed:
– All three were removed from the PCGS Top 100 Registry Set, which has consisted of just 97 coins ever since.
– All three were eliminated from the monthly PCGS Population Reports.
– Search links for their coin number prefixes became “dead” and still are.
Despite trying every way I could think of for years, I had not been able to find a way into the PCGS population database to see how many illicit micro-Os were still out there.
But last week a kindly rabbit gave me a magic key that unlocked a secret door: a link to a PCGS micro-O Showcase Set. Once inside, current population data was visible and I was able to assemble the summary table seen here:
For those of you who were not involved in VAMing in the 1990s and early-00s, the three micro-O dates were a literal treasure hunt. In fact, it tended to be a dumpster-diving treasure hunt, since many were found in melt buckets and bargain bins.
As someone who was there, two coins in this summary table jump out at me: the 1900 and 1902 in AU. If you’ve never seen one of the counterfeit micro-Os in such a high grade, be assured there is nothing that looks “right” about them.
It is no wonder that a submission of three (as I recall) strong AUs – one was an AU58 in my opinion that needed no loupe to yell “fake!” – finally set off the “wait just a minute!” alarm at PCGS.
Before then, the micro-Os had managed to hide in plain sight thanks to decent workmanship and often extensive circulation wear. For example, the average grade of the PCGS 1896-Os in this table is 26, the 1900-O average is 21, and the 1902-O average is just under 20.
Despite being kicked out of the Top 100 set at PCGS, their illicit origin and the embarrassment they caused among TPGs ensure they will always be favorites of VAM collectors. And they are still part of the official VAM Top 100 set.
Last edited by DHalladay on Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:18 pm, edited 4 times in total.
When in doubt... don't.
-
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:16 pm
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Nice write-up Mr. Halladay. Lots of good information. thanks
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Good info.
-
- Posts: 880
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:55 am
- Location: Florida
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Excellent writeup. I remember finding my first micro o. It was a 96 o back in the 90's. It was at a small show inside a mall that I hit after attending the Dalton show. Not exactly sure of the year but guessing 96 or 97. Mike
- CascadeChris
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:41 pm
Re: Banished from the Top 100
I'm not one to actually want something specific. It's not my collecting style. But, that said, I really WANT one of the micro's in a PCGS slab that escaped the buyback.
CACG Grader, Director of Attributions & Research
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Dennis - thanks for the "walk down memory lane" . I wish I had slabbed my extras back then !!!
Have a great day!
-
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 1:58 am
Re: Banished from the Top 100
PCGS would have to come off some serious money to get my four back. Not that chicken fee buy back program they had.
I think a few stories I read many moons ago ended with, "and they lived happy ever after".
I think a few stories I read many moons ago ended with, "and they lived happy ever after".
-
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:48 am
Re: Banished from the Top 100
I found an au 102o in 1996 at a show in OHIO, AND AN 1896O IN WHAT I THGOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS A STONG VF. oops, cap lock again. anyway, I said then, they had to be counterfeit but nobody cared what I had to say. the 1901o looked so wrong, and so different from other morgans. the 1896o was a little less obvious but still, it looked like crap for having so much detail.
- lioncutter
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:28 pm
- Location: Lexington, Kentucky
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Great Story that will always live in VAM history.
Here is what is written in the VAMview #1 page 6 & 7
http://registry.ssdcvams.com/VV/VAMview_1.pdf.
Here is what is written in the VAMview #1 page 6 & 7
http://registry.ssdcvams.com/VV/VAMview_1.pdf.
I may not be the best, but I do not know anyone better.
-
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:48 am
Re: Banished from the Top 100
@li0ncut@lioncutter , nothing like a blast from the past.
Re: Banished from the Top 100
I was the Editor of VAMview and wrote most of the content.lioncutter wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:54 amGreat Story that will always live in VAM history.
Here is what is written in the VAMview #1 page 6 & 7
http://registry.ssdcvams.com/VV/VAMview_1.pdf.
When in doubt... don't.
- LateDateMorganGuy
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:11 am
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Hey Dennis, with the PCGS info available now, maybe a combined POP census of PCGS, ANACS & NGC would be informative? Just a thought.
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Good info. My impression was that very few were bought back by PCGS. Thanks for copying the info before PCGS fixes the glitch and it disappears.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.
- CascadeChris
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:41 pm
Re: Banished from the Top 100
What was your first thought the first time you saw a 90o v13A reverse?vamsterdam wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:48 amI found an au 102o in 1996 at a show in OHIO, AND AN 1896O IN WHAT I THGOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS A STONG VF. oops, cap lock again. anyway, I said then, they had to be counterfeit but nobody cared what I had to say. the 1901o looked so wrong, and so different from other morgans. the 1896o was a little less obvious but still, it looked like crap for having so much detail.
CACG Grader, Director of Attributions & Research
-
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:48 am
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Just saw another raw veg 1890o v13a. I wondered if it was counterfeit at first. Soft details around the devices. Then I realized it was a vam 13a.
- CascadeChris
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:41 pm
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Yup. That was my first thought too when I bought one at the last Buena Park show not knowing about the 13A. Looks so "counterfeit-ey" I'll post the reverse so lurkers know what were talking about. Must look wicked cool BU/Gem.vamsterdam wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:40 pmJust saw another raw veg 1890o v13a. I wondered if it was counterfeit at first. Soft details around the devices. Then I realized it was a vam 13a.
CACG Grader, Director of Attributions & Research
-
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:04 pm
Re: Banished from the Top 100
Really good stuff Dennis.
Thank you for your efforts and diligence.
I hope to buy some one day.
Andy Hansen
Thank you for your efforts and diligence.
I hope to buy some one day.
Andy Hansen
Re: Banished from the Top 100
I just discovered that my 1896-O MIcro-O is most likely not included the the table above!
The PCGS database shows my coin's serial number as being a plain old 1896-O (PCGS coin #7242) rather than as a Micro-O (PCGS coin #87242), even though the attribution on my holder says coin #87242 and Micro-O.
I hope Customer Service can fix this.
The PCGS database shows my coin's serial number as being a plain old 1896-O (PCGS coin #7242) rather than as a Micro-O (PCGS coin #87242), even though the attribution on my holder says coin #87242 and Micro-O.
I hope Customer Service can fix this.
When in doubt... don't.