Fun W/21 Help!

[bob259]

All Morgans and Peace are VAMs and most of the JOH numbers have been assigned VAM numbers. I had a bunch and have been able to attribute them with VAM numbers BUT I'm stuck on 21D JOH-21 & 22. Anyone know which VAMs they are?

[Geseas]

The way I understand it;
those JOH's you mentioned do not have the qualities necessary to become a 'true Vam' so they are not assigned a number by Leroy. A kind of a limbo thingy...Not unlike VNA coins, maybe?

[bob259]

But aren't all Morgans a VAM?

[Geseas]

I think everyone here that has worked with the 1921-D Morgan finds this area you are pointing out very frustrating also. I sure do.
The 'Gray areas' seem to be dealt with very well here on Vamworld 2.0: except for this one. I think there may be some dated political element in the mix I know nothing about.

In my case, I would like to find a photo to compare with my coin. I'm thinking it could be a 1921-D JOH-23 Extensive Cracking. I can't seem to find this photo... I guess I don't care if you call it a Vam, Joh, or a Joe; this is because of my style of collecting.

Maybe post photos of your JOH's and folks here will find a way to turn them into Vams.

[DHalladay]

"some dated political element"?
Seriously?

Why does everything these days have to have a conspiracy angle? Why does everything have to be due to a sinister political agenda?

"Fun with '21" is 18 years old. Maybe the updated information has simply fallen through the cracks during the passage of time and/or the transition from VAMworld 1.0 to 2.0. Or maybe it wasn't updated onto the attribution page(s) once it was available. Stuff like that happens pretty often.

[bob259]

I'll post some pages from my Fun W/21 book. JOH 21 & 22 pages plus some pics of my coins. It would be nice to chase these down and get them assigned.

[RogerRock]

My contributions on 1921 D Morgan VAMS as NEW/REVISED Late Die State are well documented on the VAM PAGE. Coincidental JOH numbers which relate to my New Discovery pieces are: 1BQ = JOH 9 Discovery VAM 1BQ2 and 1DG2 Discovery VAM = JOH 28

[Geseas]

"some dated political element"?
Seriously?

Why does everything these days have to have a conspiracy angle? Why does everything have to be due to a sinister political agenda?

"Fun with '21" is 18 years old. Maybe the updated information has simply fallen through the cracks during the passage of time and/or the transition from VAMworld 1.0 to 2.0. Or maybe it wasn't updated onto the attribution page(s) once it was available. Stuff like that happens pretty often.

I think we all are suspicious to some degree. It must be a genetic survival thing. You just have to keep all it in a balance somehow.

This is how I think I came up with, "some dated political element."

"Fun with 21" by Robert Joyce is arguably a "dated" book. It is only 18 years old, but as you said, a lot can
fall through the cracks in that amount of time.

The political element maybe can be found in the author's own words:

JOH
"In the hunt for new 21-D die breaks, many coins were found and sent to Leroy Van
Allen for possible assignment as new VAMs. Some coins discovered during research
were determined to have features that were too insignificant to be assigned a VAM
number. Mr. Van Allen requires die breaks to be visible to the naked eye to be
assigned as a new VAM. Jim Hart and this author decided that there was a need to
label these unassigned coins to continue our research and discussion. In the spirit of
the Leroy Van Allen - George Mallis VAM name, we decided to use JOyce - Hart
numbers or JOH, pronounced “Joe”). Detailed descriptions of these JOH numbers
start on page 108."

Mr. Joyce and Mr. Hart must have made some significant contributions to numismatics to be able to have their appreciated work incorporated into that of VamWorlds.
I may wrongly be calling that 'a political element'.

A Noob might ask, "instead of JOH why not just VNA?"

note* These thoughts are sent to you from a noob that has just now begun the examination of his Grandfathers' worn pocket change.

[messydesk]

"some dated political element"?
Seriously?

Why does everything these days have to have a conspiracy angle? Why does everything have to be due to a sinister political agenda?

"Fun with '21" is 18 years old. Maybe the updated information has simply fallen through the cracks during the passage of time and/or the transition from VAMworld 1.0 to 2.0. Or maybe it wasn't updated onto the attribution page(s) once it was available. Stuff like that happens pretty often.

I think we all are suspicious to some degree. It must be a genetic survival thing. You just have to keep all it in a balance somehow.

This is how I think I came up with, "some dated political element."

"Fun with 21" by Robert Joyce is arguably a "dated" book. It is only 18 years old, but as you said, a lot can
fall through the cracks in that amount of time.

The political element maybe can be found in the author's own words:

JOH
"In the hunt for new 21-D die breaks, many coins were found and sent to Leroy Van
Allen for possible assignment as new VAMs. Some coins discovered during research
were determined to have features that were too insignificant to be assigned a VAM
number. Mr. Van Allen requires die breaks to be visible to the naked eye to be
assigned as a new VAM. Jim Hart and this author decided that there was a need to
label these unassigned coins to continue our research and discussion. In the spirit of
the Leroy Van Allen - George Mallis VAM name, we decided to use JOyce - Hart
numbers or JOH, pronounced “Joe”). Detailed descriptions of these JOH numbers
start on page 108."

Mr. Joyce and Mr. Hart must have made some significant contributions to numismatics to be able to have their appreciated work incorporated into that of VamWorlds.
I may wrongly be calling that 'a political element'.

A Noob might ask, "instead of JOH why not just VNA?"

Rob Joyce started VAMWorld in 2006 because he didn't want to publish another 1921-D book. There was no such thing as "VNA" when they did their book. The JOH numbers were meant to catalog die marriages Leroy declined to in hopes that they would eventually be superseded by actual VAM numbers. Most of them were, either as later die stages were found or as scribbling scratches started to become cataloged starting in 2007. For those that weren't, their cataloging numbers remain. There is nothing political about it. If you create and publish an original body of work for which existing catalogs are insufficient, feel free to use your name or initials on it.

[vampicker]

Some years ago, I published an article detailing the various marriages of the 89-CC. Two of them were not listed in The VAM book or its updates at the time. For a couple of years, they were known as Roberts-5 and Roberts-6 until Van Allen listed them as VAM 5 and 6. To this day, there are a few (less than a dozen)company holders floating around with these designations. That same issue of 'VAM View' is the source of another example of this standard naming convention, Ash Harrison's excellent work on the various stages of the Scarface progression.