GTG Rainbow Toned Peace Dollar (GRADE REVEALED)
cameonut2011
Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
No cheating. Tell me your thoughts of this coin. I'll reveal mine (not that anyone cares) when I reveal the grade. I think this will be a fun thread with a wide variety of opinion. P.S. It's not my coin; a friend of mine made this last year.
Do not assume that it straight graded or that it did not straight grade based on my post and the images. I want YOUR opinion of the coin.
(PCGS MS64+ CAC)
7
Comments
Hard to judge from a photo with that much toning. I like it. 63 maybe toning bump to 64.
MS64. Real nice dollar there
Cartoonish over-the-top toning and to my eyes looks like an unnatural appearance.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
kind of like it. Looks 63 to me.
My YouTube Channel
Looks Terminal/ED on the reverse. I would say no grade but given you are asking what the grade is that probably means it straight graded, I'll go 64.
Collector, occasional seller
As your friend "made" it, maybe AT.
I don't think my friend would do that. By "made it," I mean he purchased the coin raw and submitted it.
Ok. I will go with my original guess.
Is the picture a fair representation of the coin in hand?
AU55
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
AT
yep, that's a toner. its somewhat likeable as well. jmo
I'm in the UNC Details Questionable Color camp.
Terminal toning on the reverse is a huge downside. I like the rest of the coin, but I would never buy one like that.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
It might be an attractive coin, but the look isn’t natural to me. I’m grading it QT, leaning a bit more to the AT side of things.
The color looks questionable. However, if it straight graded, I don’t know why it wouldn’t have graded approximately MS66. I don’t understand the AU55-MS64 grade guesses.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's a tough one because you dont see that toning a lot. Usually youd see the AT color schemes around a little more often. But the reverse looks questionable.
AT details
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
QC as I see it.MS 65.
UNC QC
You say a friend of yours "made this". I hope that means got it into a holder and not artificially colored it.
Pcgs seems to like reds, greens, and orange russet colors on peace dollars. Hard to see if there is any luster from the images but if straight graded, probably a 64, 65 at best imo.
Because every time I think one is a 65, it's a 64. It's also hard to tell what that toning is hiding in a photo.
Collector, occasional seller
AT Questionable Color
It's not my coin; a friend of mine made this last year.
my thoughts are summed up by your post above.
Toning seems a tad unnatural, but if it goes through I would say a MS65.
AT. 58.
U.S. Type Set
I also believe it’s AT
UNC AT
Bunk imo and if it straight graded or cac makes no difference to me.
The coin is striking, but I don't think those colors are very attractive, so if it was AT'd, I wouldn't consider it a very good job.
So I lean to straight graded 65
Taco Bell+EZ bake oven AT ; Unc details
Commems and Early Type
My guess is it's multiple times darker in real life. I would have called damage on the reverse.
65, they love to grade toned peace dollars QT.
~58
UNC - Details - Questionable toning. Sorry guy.
AT. 58 details.
Questionable Color (code .91). The toning does not have a rational progression as suggested by the Sunnywood scale. Most ALL toned Morgans exhibit toning on only one side........
OINK
MS 64 STAR.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
QC
While a lot of Morgan dollars exhibit toning on only one side, I believe it’s a large exaggeration to state that “most all” do.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My friend submitted it, and it came back as PCGS MS64. It is now in a PCGS MS64+ holder with a CAC green sticker.
Like many of you, I thought the terminal toning on the reverse was a turn off. I also thought (as I still do) that it is blatant AT, but I have seen several drastically different opinions and thought it would be interesting to see what the consensus, if any here, would be.
Incredible.
Am I correct in thinking the toning by "UNUM" is flaking off?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
It's just a discontinuity in the toning - no flaking.
Not blatant AT in my book. Probably this photo is a little juiced compared to the in-hand look. Still, it doesn't look entirely natural to me and I'm not sure I'd be a buyer..... certainly not at a premium price.
From those photos I am surprised that it is CAC approved. The four wildly toned coins I sent in didn’t pass. I bet your friends coin would bring an insane premium at auction
He sold it in a no reserve auction at Great Collections where it sold last August (or somewhere around that time frame) for $4200. A subsequent owner sold it at major auction in January in a 64+ CAC holder where it fetched over $9000.
The slab shot looks more natural to me.
.
.
Here is the trueview:
.
I am wondering why the coin is not a 65 or higher if they are saying it is natural. Very clean for a 64.
Here are the Great Collections images. Talk about, "what a difference an image makes" when looking at all of them posted right?
.
.
