Is this an ugly Morgan? 1900-O
Spartcom5
Posts: 399 ✭✭✭
I had the chance to buy this for around $55, didn't pull the trigger but I wanted to show you all because it thought it looked interesting. Odd that someone would have it graded and with true views. Must've liked the toning I suppose!
1
Comments
I like the obverse. If the reverse had crazy luster and/or PL surfaces peeking through it could be nice but otherwise it is not a coin I would want. Some may like it as it does appear quite original.
On the plus side it is extremely clean for a 63 (which makes me think it does not have great luster).
ugly
It's definitely different
Sometimes old coins look like old coins. I like it.
Reverse is ugly, obverse is not bad.
I could live with the obverse, the reverse, yuck
This is my thought too. The "tarnish" is definitely strong with this reverse, although it does look like it's a pretty strong strike for this date. I have seen much worse. I do think 63 is the correct grade and while I personally would not call it ugly...I can certainly understand why some would pass on owning it.
Here is my ugly coin. Guess we need an ugly coin contest.
+1. And a crusty coin I'd have added to my year set at that price.But I'm primarily an ancients and national banknote guy, tend to prefer toners and look at the world a bit darkly anyway.
Not for my cabinet.
bob
The obverse is nice, the reverse has a more mottled and darker patina. I don't like the Truview pics, they do not look like the coin looks in hand IMO. For $55 you wouldn't have been taking too much of a chance. What is a dinner out for two at a decent restaurant...about $55?
It is extremely clean and I think that adds to the appeal of this particular coin.
fugly
My guess is that the reverse in hand is darker and dull.