Toned Morgan, thoughts and opinions....

SoCalBigMark

Is it a Moose? What is it worth? Provenance?
https://ebay.com/itm/203898390153?hash=item2f794a8689:g:C7AAAOSw759iTfiQ

Weiss

Not sure I'm a good judge of meese, but that's not it. Reverse is white, colors on obverse are pretty but not shocking.
Edited to add: Why no full images of the slab? It's not really a "first generation fatty slab". It's a 3.0 (1987-1989).
And there is no CAC, either.

Connecticoin

Nice, but not worth that much IMO, especially for a 64.

Connecticoin

This is an excellent website on Toned Morgans. I think this would be in the "high end" category (scroll to bottom):

https://www.monstertonedmorgans.com/all-about-toned-morgans

bsshog40

I like the colors but unless the reverse took it to a 64, the obv doesn't look that good to.

Catbert

After enthusiastically describing his coin, the seller qualifies the toning saying the coin has more gold than green tones and then states “no returns”. This would not encourage me to buy the coin setting aside the price, grade, value proposition.

Meltdown

@Connecticoin said:
This is an excellent website on Toned Morgans. I think this would be in the "high end" category (scroll to bottom):

https://www.monstertonedmorgans.com/all-about-toned-morgans

I hadn't seen that before. Some of it I knew but still very informative.

braddick

For me, a Moose must be MS65 or more significant, no matter how fantastic the toning is. Although the toning is sweet, even at 65, it wouldn't carry it into the Moose category.
Perhaps I am too strict, and the term is used more loosely, but that is how I just these over the years.

coastaljerseyguy

Very nice with bag toning, though not an expert on the definition of Moose toned coins, the colors don't seem to jump out at you. Would need to see rev to determine if it has a shot at 65. Obv is very clean from photo.

coinbuf

Value to me $150, value in todays market too much.

lkenefic

One thing that stood out to me: "seller does not accept returns"... without seeing a toner in-hand, at least for me, it's nearly impossible to gauge the actual color and remaining luster. It could be a beautiful piece, if not... you're stuck with it...

david3142

I think it’s a nice Morgan. Before looking at the listing I would have guessed the value to be around $600-$800. Maybe in this market you can get $1000 but anything over that seems too high to me.

ElmerFusterpuck

That coin is very attractive but not $2499 attractive. The presence or lack of a sticker on toned coins like this doesn't bother me a bit.

Connecticoin

@ElmerFusterpuck said:
That coin is very attractive but not $2499 attractive. The presence or lack of a sticker on toned coins like this doesn't bother me a bit.

Agreed. The coin should slam-dunk sticker, but the seller probably did not want to spend the money and effort to get a CAC bean.

morgandollar1878

It is a very nice looking toned morgan, however it does not make it to the "Moose" category of toned morgans. Neither the color or grade gets it to that category. Color needs to be more vivid and the grade needs to be at least a 66 IMO.

SurfinxHI

It has really nice obverse color, and I like it. It is nowhere near a Moose. Maybe a goose, but not a moose. I typically associate a moose with a minimum of MS 65, but usually MS 66 or 67 for that date, with superior color.

If that coin is $2500, I've got a whole slew for sale at a significant savings for those interested....

Steven59

Seller has alot of toners - seems like he figured out how to take pictures to enhance the toning. Who knows exactly what it would look like in hand as previously stated

airplanenut

The color is very nice, but not nearly strong or colorful enough to be a moose to me. Also, the fingerprint is distracting. Whatever you call it, I call it overpriced.

@Steven59 said:
Seller has alot of toners - seems like he figured out how to take pictures to enhance the toning. Who knows exactly what it would look like in hand as previously stated

Quite the accusation. What makes you say that? The coins I’m looking at have common patterns and display common/expected colors, and they’re relatively easy to photograph. I see no reason to think they are inaccurate.

@bsshog40 said:
I like the colors but unless the reverse took it to a 64, the obv doesn't look that good to.

I see no reason to think this isn’t an easy 64. The obverse isn’t an amazing gem, but it looks fine for the grade.

ricko

Over rated and over priced..... I will stop there. Cheers, RickO

MFeld

@airplanenut said:
The color is very nice, but not nearly strong or colorful enough to be a moose to me. Also, the fingerprint is distracting. Whatever you call it, I call it overpriced.

@Steven59 said:
Seller has alot of toners - seems like he figured out how to take pictures to enhance the toning. Who knows exactly what it would look like in hand as previously stated

Quite the accusation. What makes you say that? The coins I’m looking at have common patterns and display common/expected colors, and they’re relatively easy to photograph. I see no reason to think they are inaccurate.

@bsshog40 said:
I like the colors but unless the reverse took it to a 64, the obv doesn't look that good to.

I see no reason to think this isn’t an easy 64. The obverse isn’t an amazing gem, but it looks fine for the grade.

Agreed on all of the above. And with respect to the last comment, it would be very unusual for the reverse of a coin to take the grade up.

coastaljerseyguy

IMHO I'm not sure that is a fingerprint, but hazy, minimal textile toning from mint bag, not a plus, but not a fingerprint. Might be wrong but usually fingerprints have a different look.

DelawareDoons

@Weiss said:
Not sure I'm a good judge of meese, but that's not it. Reverse is white, colors on obverse are pretty but not shocking.
Edited to add: Why no full images of the slab? It's not really a "first generation fatty slab". It's a 3.0 (1987-1989).
And there is no CAC, either.

Can't tell if it's a 3.0 or 4.0 without seeing the reverse. 3.0 = embossed, 4.0 = holo.

This guy always asks super-strong money and apparently has found buyers, so good for him, but I'd never spend that kind of dough on this coin.

airplanenut

@coastaljerseyguy said:
IMHO I'm not sure that is a fingerprint, but hazy, minimal textile toning from mint bag, not a plus, but not a fingerprint. Might be wrong but usually fingerprints have a different look.

The cheek shows textile. A different photo in the listing shows an ugly print.