We started this discussion with the intention of looking first at the die cracks on all coins with the Reverse Die designation of l.  Then we added to the discussion three additional coins with different die designations, but with "O Set Left" in the title or official description of the die.

After digesting all the information from Leroy here is where we stand.

1. The VAM 3 reverse die C3l gets additional descriptors to include the "slight tilt left but within the normal tolerance".
2. VAM 23 has a different reverse die than VAM 3
   1. The m/m is set further left than on the C3l die of VAM 3.
   2. The right wing is overpolished.
   3. There is a vertical die polish line below the wing-neck gap.
3. VAM 32 has a different reverse die than either VAM 3 or VAM 23
   1. Pitting on the reverse
   2. Long vertical die polish line in the middle of the outer feathers of the eagle's right wing
4. VAM 54 has a different reverse die than VAMs 3, 23, and 32
   1. O m/m is set left
   2. Does not have the vertical polish line of VAM 32
   3. Thread-like die impression in the wreath leaves above LL (light and difficult to see, but there)
5. VAM 56 has a different reverse die than the C3l with the O m/m centered
6. VAM 57 has a different reverse die than VAM 3
   1. O m/m set slightly left with a slight left tilt and different than VAM 23
   2. Middle of the eagle's right wing is over polished but not as much as VAM 23
7. VAM 61 has the same reverse as VAM 54
   1. O m/m is set left
   2. Thread-like die impression in the wreath leaves above LL
8. VAM 64 has the same reverse of VAM's 23, 35, and 70
   1. O Set Left
   2. Over polished right wing as in VAMs 23, 35, and 70
9. VAM 70 is the same die as VAMs 23, 35, and 64
   1. Overpolished right wing as VAMs 23, 35, and 64
10. VAM 35 same die as VAMs 23, 64, and 70
    1. O Set Left
    2. Over polished right wing as in VAMs 23, 64, and 70
    3. Short vertical polish lines between the eagle's body and left wing
11. VAM 77A a new die with a displaced field, designated as a C 3 a
    1. O m/m set only slightly left within normal tolerance
    2. Displaced field breaks at TAT of STATES and slightly at AME of AMERICA

This becomes our baseline comparison Reverse Die l.  The mint mark is PCGS MS 6233370992VAM 3definitely set left, but remains upright.  In some examples the interior of the mint mark is not clean, but also not doubled.  In the left wing-neck gap there is some roughness, but more importantly there is a die gouge that runs from about 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock.  This die gouge has been validated on multiple coins.

If the right wing has had any polishing it is very slight and we would not identify it as such right now.  The bow has some distinct roughness that completely encircles the inside of the opening.

​

So these are going to be our four points of comparison on all the dies.

1. Upright mint mark that is set left

2. Die gouge in the left wing-neck gap

3. Very slight right wing polishing if at all

4. Roughness that encircles the interior of the bow

PCGS MS 61DMPL14675967VAM 54VAM 54 is one of our discovery VAMs so we can go to the Discovery Coin for verification and then validate our observations on other coins.  This is not a rare VAM so there is a lot of material.  Most VAM 54 coins are either DMPL or PL, but we validated these features on five MS grade coins.  On most VAM 54 coins there is some white residue, often accompanied by a clear substance that clings in the crevices.  We believe this to be grease or some other agent used in the coining process.  The clear substance can be seen on this coin at the bottom left of the bow and the bottom of the O in DOLLAR.  This is a moderately pitted die across much of the eagle which also signals die wear or misuse.

This VAM seems to be a late die state where the DMPL designation came from extensive repolishing which is visible on both wings and in the upper region of the tail feathers.  The mint mark is set left and vertical, but has some polish lines inside the oval.  This would not rule it out as a late die state of the reverse of VAM 3.  There is some roughness in the win-neck gap, but the die gouge of VAM 3 is missing.  But on a heavily repolished die this could have easily been removed.  There is a different roughness to the inside of the bow, but once again nothing to rule this out as a later die state of the reverse of VAM 3.  We believe that this is a later die state of Reverse Die l.

PCGS MS 6216140642VAM 56VAM 56 is one of our discovery VAMs so we can go to the Discovery Coin for observations.  But this is one of those confusing coins that you need to get your microscope out and settle in to understand.

Back on VAM 3 we described a roughness on the inside of the bow that creates a unique pattern.  That pattern is more evident on VAM 56 and can be illustrated as a polygon (almost).  This same pattern is on the inside of the VAM 3 bow.

VAM 3 also has a small die gouge in the wing neck gap, and VAM 56 also has one.  But on VAM 56 this is a different gouge.  On VAM 56 it is essentially horizontal where on VAM 3 it is diagonal.  That would not rule this one out as a Reverse Die i because of polishing, but it is different.  If there is any polishing in the wings it is very slight.

And then there is the mint mark which we think should help with the sorting out of the die.  But our observation would be that this mint is not set quite as far left.  So back to Photoshop to line up the two coins and we were right.  The mint mark on the VAM 56 is not set as far left and is probably within the tolerance of being a centered mint mark.

So this die is up in the air.  It has several markings that match the Reverse Die l of VAM 3, but the mint mark is not left but centered.  Unless we can find other evidence to support this as Reverse Die l, then we do not believe this is the same reverse die as the baseline die on VAM 3.

​

PCGS MS 6220778874VAM 57VAM 57 is another one of our discovery VAMs and is designated with a Reverse Die l.  We have three examples of the VAM and all exhibit the same traits, or we probably should say the absence of traits.

The wing-neck gap is completely clean and devoid of features.  The interior of the bow is also clean and without features.  The eagle's right wing has been polished and there is loss of detail.  This leaves only the mint mark as a distinguishing feature.  The mint mark is set slightly left, but also it seems to be cantered slightly left.

Based on all these factors we do not believe this is the same reverse die as the baseline die on VAM 3.

PCGS AU 5831698266VAM 61VAM 61 is one of our discoveries in 2015 and since then we have located thirteen examples, so not a rare VAM.  Our discovery coin is a very lightly worn AU 58 and we have other MS coins to use to validate the features.

The mint mark appears to be set left and vertical.  There is a distinctive die crack that runs through DOLLAR and in other areas of the die, but these do not align with other Reverse Die l coins.  There is another feature with the mint mark that is a differentiating item.  In the top and bottom of the mint mark there is a flat shiny area that looks similar to marks often labeled as "Dot in O."  This is not that feature but it has some of the visual characteristics.

We do not believe this is the same reverse die as the baseline die on VAM 3.

This is a pitted die, but early in that failure.  The pitting in the eagle's wing-neck gap does have a set pattern that can be used for identification once you have a coin for comparison.

The bow also has pitting but lacks the roughness of many of the other dies.  The eagle's wings do not appear to have been repolished and also show signs of pitting.