Has the date of this worn SF Morgan been lost forever?
lkeigwin
Posts: 16,893 ✭✭✭✭✭
It would be fun to know. I'm not a Morgan specialist.
A shame this workhorse can't be identified.
Lance.
Coin Photography Services / Everyman Registry set / BHNC #213
0
Comments
I can narrow it down to 1879-1900, but I think that's about as specific as I can get on that one.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
For $185.00 you can have an X-Ray taken for a tell all.
Why couldn't it be a 1921-S?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
An X-Ray wouldn't reveal the date.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I was being facetious.
The design of the eagle’s left wing is different on the 21.
The feather angle on the arrow ruled out the 78.
I have heard - though I have no specific knowledge or experience - that a chemical etch can reveal the date...however, that would also ruin the coin....I was told that the striking process tends to leave a slightly different metallic structure in the recessed part of the strike, thus, with the etch, an outline can be produced. I would think that with severely worn coins - the wear may have gone beyond the recess point... JMO...Cheers, RickO
@ricko is correct. It's that the molecules are compressed during the rearranging of the metal to create the numbers although incuse numbers are generally stronger to detect by acid etch. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Nic-a-Date? Why not give it a go?
Liken RickO's advise.
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.joeykoins is right but there's a high probability it's an 1881-S.
The active ingredient in Nic a date is FeCl3. It works well on copper (nickels are a 75Cu25Ni alloy), but doesn't have much of an effect on 90% silver.
I tried nitric acid on some SLQs back in my college days with no success, even though you think it would. HNO3 did work really well on buffalos. You have to be really careful with this stuff and I would strongly recommend against using it unless you have experience working with chemicals. You'll know right away if you get it on your skin (you don't want to go there)
It works on nickels which are 75% copper which the acid in nic-a-date etches but I've never heard it working on a silver coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I have also heard that when nic-a-date is used in nickels the date will fade away after a few years.
I was told that ferric nitrate would etch silver.... Never tried it, nor have I seen results from it....An engineer that worked for me told me about it.... Cheers, RickO
Get Superman with his x ray vision to tell us
This is correct. The fletching, and a lot of other stuff, is different on the 1921 hubs. The reason it isn't 01-S through 04-S is the shape of the mint mark. In 1900, they phased in a different S punch that is wider and more open. The S on the coin shown is clearly the 1879-1900 S. There was also a hub change that was phased in at the same time. The coin shown has a C3 reverse hub, while the late S-mint coins are all the C4 hub. There are C3 reverse hubs for 1901-S, but they all have the wide mint mark.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Interesting. Thanks for that, John. So it's a 19th century Morgan!
Lance.
There used to be a Standing Liberty date restorer on the market that would probably work. It was made by the same company that made Nic-a-Date. I'm not sure as to what it was made of.
I probably won't mess with it. It's actually kinda pretty.
When I look hard I can see 1893 so that's how I'll sell it on ebay.
Lance.
That coin did many, many years as a pocket piece or in Las Vegas.
I'd enjoy it for what it is.
Looks like a 93 to me too!
I'd imagine he'd give you a great deal on it!
Get one of those tiny paint brushes that the people at fairs use to paint your name on a grain of rice and make it less hard to see.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Negative son. If you take the total mintage of Morgans (excluding 1921) and the mintage of 1881-S and divide you will see there is only a one in 27 chance it is an 81-S. That is less than a 5% chance. Not "a high probability".
If you take the total mintage of Morgans.
I understand your point although your math is a little off, it's more than a 13% chance. there are other factors involved, such as what was stored and what circulated, that's a point better left to others who are more informed than I am. here's the thing, though: since 1881 had a high mintage and our Uncle intended for these to circulate it is more likely that an 1881 dated coin spent more time than, say, an 1890 dated coin. by that time it is reasonable to assume that as many were being placed into circulation as were being stored in vaults, but again, I'm not the guy who knows such things.
it just seems that there are several "S" Mint Morgan Dollars that had a high percentage of there population removed from circulation or never entered into circulation. those 1881-S's saw an awful lot of use. another thing I learned from time behind that counter --- if someone came into the store with maybe 10-15 circ Morgans to sell I could always count on the group including 1921, 1896 and 1881-S.
in summary, I wouldn't be surprised if the coin is an 1881-S just because that date is easily the most common "S" Mint coin, pre-1900 it is almost the most common date, period.
What about "its most likely an 1881-S"
Among the Morgan S mints, which ones have the highest survival rate in circulation condition? It may not be the ones with the "highest" mintages....or the ones where the most UNCs were saved. Mintages are only part of the story. Commerce, meltings, strength of collector bases in various regions are some of the others. Seems to me when I've looked at well circulated Morgans over the years, more of them have tended to be P and O mints.
Is a dateless Lincoln cent most likely a 1964-D because of its high mintage?
Is it not likely a worn nickel is a 1950-D?
Is it likely a worn and dateless Chain Cent is an 1793?
...dateless and coins are like 2 peas in a pod
I’m OK with saying the coin is “most likely” an 1881-S. It’s just a quick and dirty guess based on a little data and gut feel. Technically, I suppose you’re correct in pointing out that “high probability” may not be the most appropriate term, but I don’t think anyone confused @keets experienced based guess with a statistical analysis.
Do you have any info that would indicate mintages aren’t a reasonable indicator of the survival rate of 1879-1900 S Mint dollars?
I think I see a faint "93"
Just point your remote at it and hit rewind and see where it stops
Steve
Although a gold plated V nickel is probably an 1883, so I do see the other side of the debate.
Nope. 81-S is common in uncircualted condition. This is more likely an 88-S, 92-S, or 96-S than an 81-S.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Thanks @messydesk that answers my question about the validity of using mIntage data. So it sounds like the 81-S sat in vaults while the later dates you referenced ended up in circulation.