Coin show newps, Morgans! AT or real?

Russ · January 18, 2003 8:08AM

Any of you ever go to a show where you don't really find much of anything that you normally collect, but need to spend some money anyway?

Other than a couple 1964 proof sets that turned out to be nothing special, it was slim pickens for me today. No decent Walkers, and I still couldn't find an 1869 Two Cent piece. Almost plunked down the money for an 1872, but it was over-graded and over-priced. I saw a very nicely toned 1942-D Jefferson that I almost bought, but the dealer didn't quite come down enough - besides, I have no idea what it should cost anyway!

So, to feed the need, I bought a couple Morgans just because I thought they were pretty. Here's one of them:

Large scans here:

Gigantic obverse scan.

Gigantic reverse scan.

And, here's the other:

Gigantic obverse scan.

Gigantic reverse scan.

I'm pretty sure the first one is real toning. When you tell me the second one is artificial toning, please define why, so I can learn.

Oh, and lest I neglect modern collectors, there was one nice Roosie in a set today:

Enjoy.

Russ, NCNE

DanC · January 18, 2003 8:09AM

Hey Buckwheat... didn't happen to notice at the time, but that cameo Roosie is a pointed nine... isn't it?

Russ · January 18, 2003 8:11AM

Nope.

Russ, NCNE

MarkJude · January 18, 2003 8:16AM

Russ:

I'm no expert, but the first Morgan looks AT to me, the second looks real.

I really can't tell you exactly what I think is wrong, but the way the color splashes over the letters on the first coin just doesn't seem quite right. The second coin seems to look more "natural".

I will be curious to see what the experts think.

Mark

Placid · January 18, 2003 8:17AM

I don't see many nice toned 97's. Looks ok to me

braddick · January 18, 2003 8:17AM

Stunning Morgans, both of them- and I think the toning is real even on the second one. The area around the date (and the small specks where toning is missing) is one tell.

And, no matter how many times- I'm always impressed with those Black & White 1964 silver coins! I'm taking up photography myself and have yet to come even close to duplicating your efforts.
-Looks like a great collecting day for you (even without scoring that 1872 2c).

Stigmata · January 18, 2003 8:21AM

<< <i>Russ:

I'm no expert, but the first Morgan looks AT to me, the second looks real.

I really can't tell you exactly what I think is wrong, but the way the color splashes over the letters on the first coin just doesn't seem quite right. The second coin seems to look more "natural".

I will be curious to see what the experts think.

Mark >>

I'd have to disagree with you. I believe the 2nd one is AT. If you look at the reverse, no part of the outer-rim is toned. I may be completely wrong (like usual), but I'm trying to get better at this stuff heh. I'm learning..

Russ · January 18, 2003 8:23AM

Oh yeah, and I saw an absolutely beautiful 1899 MS67 RD IHC today courtesy of Lakesammman, who I got to meet.

Russ, NCNE

ClarkOfKent · January 18, 2003 8:32AM

Russ,

Could it be that your cherry-picking skills were diminished by a full belly? Did you notice if DanC picked up any goodies that you didn't notice at the time?

DanC · January 18, 2003 8:35AM

Oh CLAAAAAARRRRRK,

My first toned Morgan:

Russ · January 18, 2003 8:38AM

Don't be hijacking my thread dickweed.

Russ, NCNE

DanC · January 18, 2003 8:40AM

Bite me.
Besides... I thought it the appropriate place to post, since it was about toned Morgans.. and we were both there.

Get over it.

ClarkOfKent · January 18, 2003 8:42AM

You guys both did ok on the toned Morgans.

Russ, I like the first one.... the other is just a bit on the obscenely toned side of things. I like the Roosie alot.

Dan, looks good to me!

Here's my entire slabbed Morgan collection.... little toning on the reverse.
Still working on that camera/lighting thing.

ClarkOfKent · January 18, 2003 8:44AM

RUSS! DAN!

If I have to stop this car you've BOTH HAD IT!

Russ · January 18, 2003 8:48AM

<< <i>the other is just a bit on the obscenely toned side of things. >>

Which, if it turns out to be real, goes hand in hand with the other obscenity - money!

I need Dragon, Gsaguy and Dog in here to give me some opinions.

Russ, NCNE

ClarkOfKent · January 18, 2003 8:53AM

Russ,

Point well taken!

Dog97 · January 18, 2003 9:03AM

Bummer you didn't find anything. I went to a small local 20 table show today and did good.
#1 is clearly real & #2 is iffy because of the reg purple color. #2 looks like bad album tone.

danglen · January 18, 2003 9:27AM

#1 REAL
#2 AT No real continuity of the color changes. The blue jumps from spot to spot. Color crawls all over the devices and rims. In natural toning you will have a tendency to see a markedly different shade of color ON the lettering and WITHIN the lettering. Outside of that, good looking color

greghansen · January 18, 2003 9:53AM

Nobody's mentioned the intense coloring on both sides of coin #2, which is another piece of evidence suggesting AT. The change of color borders look too hard to me also.

sinin1 · January 18, 2003 11:06AM

They look real to me -

I have one like the first one - made mine by dribbling a little lemon juice (made from concentrate - in little green bottle from grocery store) around the edges - who was that guy down south who had all those Morgans that he sprinkled peach juice on? was it Redfield?

The second has bag toning on both sides - cool - purples and greens are harder.

I'm soaking mine in acetone to see what I have tommorrow.

eagle7 · January 18, 2003 11:38AM

Hey Russ, what a beautiful toned Morgan, I mean the first one. It is certainly real. The second one is however questionable even though it looks nice. Odds are the second one is AT but a really nice job. DAN C's coin is a Morgan with beautiful original toning. I wish those folks who pay 1500.00 for a wild toned 1887 in ms64 worth 50.00 could see these pictures and know what real toning looks like. I remember when I was looking at Morgans with my Dad in the heady days of the mid sixtys when the bags were coming out of the mint. My uncle was buying them by the tube(thats right a plastic tube) from dealers who bought them by the bag. My Dad and I would go to his house and he would pull tube after tube out of a foot locker and we would look at them. Saw a few like the first one of Russ's and saw a few like DAN C's coin. Didnt see many at all toned. What few were toned were very light. Im talking common date coins which came out of the US Treasury Dept by the bag and which now can be bought for 75.00 in ms65. Now they are everywhere with wild toning and bringing 1500 and up. It dont take a smart person to figure it out. If you would like to sell the first one I would be a strong buyer. I would also pay premium money for DAN C's coin. I would pass on your second.

dragon · January 19, 2003 2:46AM

eagle7,

Yes, yes, your story is indeed de-facto proof that all of the wildly toned Morgans out there are 100% fake of course. I mean after all, if you didn't see any in all those tubes you looked through, how could they possibly exist??

Get a clue.

Russ, If your pics are accurate, coin #1 is good although only worth a small premium,,,coin #2 is no good and a conversation piece or learning tool only.

dragon

Russ · January 19, 2003 2:46AM

Bump for more feedback from the experts.

Russ, NCNE

stman · January 19, 2003 3:53AM

Russ, your first Morgan looks fine, the second one imo is clearly not original. I've seen those same colors and the way they sit and float on the surface, on other AT Morgans.

Russ · January 19, 2003 7:20AM

Okay, it's nearly universal that #1 is real (one vote for AT).

Number 2 came in with four votes for real, five votes for AT, and one waffling Dog at "iffy".

We'll know in about a month or so what PCGS thinks, because I'm going to spend the $15 to find out.

Russ, NCNE

Hadleydog · January 20, 2003 4:17AM

Russ, Your first Morgan looks real enough. The number 2 coin now has 4 votes real, 5 votes at and 2 waffling Dogs at iffy. Would be real interested to see what pcgs thinks on that one.

ClarkOfKent · January 20, 2003 4:41AM

Russ,

Which category does << just a bit on the obscenely toned side of things >> fall in?

Merc · January 20, 2003 4:47AM

I was just at Scott Travers coin seminar at the FUN show, plus I've seen hundreds or slabbed and raw Morgans. Mr. Travers showed several pictures of AT coins and what to look for to identify them. The second Morgan is AT. Dragon and stman told you right. Save your money for the grading fee.

Russ · May 26, 2003 6:52AM

You know, I just realized I never added the grading results on these two coins to this thread.

The first one went MS65 at PCGS.

The second one was bodybagged at PCGS for questionable color, so I sent it off to NGC.

NGC also bodybagged it - for improper cleaning.

Maybe I'll send it to ANACS next.

Russ, NCNE

FC57Coins · May 26, 2003 7:11AM

Well - I guess I'm starting to feel comfortable in getting a gut reaction from coins that I see and the first gut reaction on these two was buy the first - don't buy the second.

The first one is gorgeous - I love early "S" dollars and this is certainly an excellent example of one - good clean strike, beautiful lustre, toning that's just barely starting to blossom and blends well with the luster of the coin. A small premium yes, but still, the coin's merits stand on it's own - it's a beauty!

The second one gave me cause to pause. First the two sided toning worried me. Next the colors are somewhat suspect. Looking at the coin closer, the feeling I got was that the surfaces may have been subjected to treated paper for a while and then removed. I don't know what gave me that idea, just the reaction I got to it. Notice that, particularly on the reverse, the toning flows over most devices and letters and spills on to the edges of the coin, the colors also don't flow naturally - they jump around. You can somewhat see the same effects on the obverse, but they're not as noticeable.

I may be all wet, but my first assessment would've been my call on these - jump on the first one - pass on the second one.

Frank

Coin show newps, Morgans! AT or real?

Comments

Leave a Comment