Am I a Monster?
brocmitchell
Posts: 96 ✭✭✭
Images recently in following a PCGS Submission. Curious to see opinions regarding the "Monster" state of this coin, an 1885-O . Is she a monster, or just high-end? The reverse looks largely like the untoned portion of the obverse.
Thank you!
12
Comments
Just my 2c but Not a monster as 50% of the color is closer to the terminal end of the spectrum. Strike and cheek make more decent than highend unless the luster is blazing strong. That said clearly MA and decent neons by E pluribus with clear elevation chromatics
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
“Monster” is a marketing adjective and nothing more IMO.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
yes and no...
I look at it as a true rainbow several distinct bands of color, all in the right order.
Pretty close. I’d call it gorgeous but it would fall just short of monster.
Generally you can tell how nice it is by how much it cost. 😁
You can call it what you will but the real tell is what you are asking for it.
Just because it has colorful toning you can’t overlook the banged up cheek. No monster.
Hmm. Monster is something that can't (or shouldn't) occur in nature, right?
I think she qualifies.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Thank you everyone for the input thus far. One thing that is for certain is this topic is subjective, although there are objective points that can be noted.
Regarding terminology, the term "Monster" is often overused marketing hype but it does have its place for coins that have a certain vibrance and spectrum of toning present so I'm not ready to dismiss the term. Regarding things that make a coin "not" a monster, I don't believe terminal or "black" spectrum coloration to be a disqualifier unless it is excessive. Of the available color on this piece, I see less than 30% falling in this category. As far as marks, certainly there are MS61-62 monsters out there, so I don't think a "banged up cheek" will be a DQ. Strike and luster certainly must be a contributor, a PL coin could be considered more of a monster but is a more subdued counterpart not a monster because it lacks flashy luster as a base-layer? It seems when expected, satin luster is acceptable on "Monster" toned Morgans.
This coin is MS64 and has earned CAC approval. I am still on the fence as to whether this particular coin should be called a monster. It certainly has the right stuff, but is it enough of the right stuff? I'm still in the "seeker" status as far as this question is concerned.
[This coin is MS64 and has earned CAC approval.]
Well we haven't seen the reverse pic for a net grade - but obverse alone, they must have been blinded by the toning.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Love the coin yet I define "Monster" as the color (or more) your Morgan has yet with sparkling GEM surfaces/luster.
peacockcoins
+1
U.S. Type Set
Colorful! But not my cup of team. I like em like I like my snow. White and frosty.
It certainly has monster toning but I wouldn’t describe it as a “MONSTER” unless it checked all of the boxes.
To me that would be the true definition of a monster.
It's in the high end range (if a Monster is a 6, this is a 5.1 in my book). The colors are vibrant but there are some distractions (including some spots in the untoned section). The darker section is not a disqualifier but a monster tends to have less of that and more of the greens. And a monster can be a lower unc (it does not have to be gem or higher) but the cheek chatter does hurt this one a bit (I'd up the score by a few tenths if it was a clean cheek).
We all know a Toned Monster when we see one -
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
I tend to think of monsters as high grade with exceptional color. Yours has neither.
Here’s my real monster coin:
2 oz. .999 silver, from Limited Mintage, $63 plus reasonable shipping.
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Nah. I think this coin is fine for a 64. Even untoned, this coin would be really clean for a 63, which typically come with much more chatter on the cheek.
Hmmm… I’ve always been a fan of bright yellow toning 😬
I like when the coin itself posts a thread in the first person.
Nice toner. ⭐️
Cool shades she is wearing. monster yes.
This represents the type of coin that will not be found in my collection.
Cheers, RickO
I am not a toner specialist / expert but it looks like a super toner to me. I simply use the terms toner, nice toner, super toner to keep it consistent (for me). Technical grade range wise it’s a nice 64 (and got CAC) and any toner premium I would leave to the toner specialist / seller.
In pricing one I would review how other sellers describing / pricing their toners. There is one on the bay who I believe is very competent in this area.
A side two picture would be nice.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
I Love It!
Congratulations
"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.Based on popular demand here is the reverse side:
She also has a friend I would like to introduce for the sake of comparison. This one I hesitate to call a monster but has plenty of pizzaz herself. There is less in the way of terminal spectrum toning (perhaps a plus), what I interpret to be just a hint of textile toning (small plus), and even an interesting yet subtle progression from pastel to neon spectrum toning, where the neon is less represented (and perhaps therefore not a monster) but the fact the entire obverse of the coin is toned is great from the perspective of a "study" on bag toning color progression. This one is also 64 CAC which may boggle the mind. Only a few unfortunate hairlines limit the grade on this one...
That’s a nice one too. It’s definitely cleaner than the first (cheek looks really nice and I could see it in a 65/65+ holder). I’d rank this one below the first coin as it has less “pop” and doesn’t look as vibrant. This would be a mid-high (upper 4s in a 0-6 scale).
I quickly looked at the "agree" and sure enough I knew I would find @ricko
but seriously now, this is no monster, just a really nice Morgan, and well graded at 64, beaned is def extra credit, congrats!