Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

Morgan purchase I need opinions

I just purchased this Morgan dollar from a great seller/dealer. I cannot wait to get these coins. I wanted to share the images and get some opinions. Do you think from these images these coins are DMPL and will they grade high?
I honestly do but I wanted to get some seasoned opinions.



«1

Comments

  • Options
    dhikewhitneydhikewhitney Posts: 364 ✭✭✭

    A better time to ask is before one buys. My guess is that neither will straight grade, neither are DMOL, and neither are uncirculated.
    They both look counterfeit to me.

  • Options
    ColonelKlinckColonelKlinck Posts: 371 ✭✭✭

    @dhikewhitney said:
    A better time to ask is before one buys. My guess is that neither will straight grade, neither are DMOL, and neither are uncirculated.
    They both look counterfeit to me.

    ???? - They are both very nice looking Morgans and I believe the 1898 has a very good chance at DMPL; at least PL.

  • Options

    @dhikewhitney I would like to know why you think they are counterfeit. Maybe I can learn something here.
    BTW I never buy coins unless I have safe recourse. These are from someone I know and that I have dealt with before. If there is a problem I can return them as I bought them with a credit card. However, It's always possible they a counterfeits once someone bring up the subject.
    I personally think they are original beautiful coins. The 1898 is phenomenal in my opinion. I would very much like to have it in my collection.
    I look forward to hearing your input.
    BTW I am sorry but I don't agree with the ask before I buy comment in this particular case. I am comfortable with what I paid and how I did it.
    I do not believe your post is negative I think your trying to help me so please do.
    Thank you.

  • Options
    coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 10,769 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 78 looks whizzed, the 98 looks way off but not sure how much is the photo or the coin.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • Options
    davewesendavewesen Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭✭✭

    the 1898 obverse looks like frosty fields, not prooflike, not 3 inches reflective mirror.

    the 1878 has some funny stuff going on the cheek.

    maybe they are better in hand when you get them.

  • Options
    FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 2,854 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 1898 looks, well, interesting...

    Do you have better pictures? The fields look abnormally clean.

    Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,898 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Back to thread question....................

    Based on the images the coins look nice, especially the 1878 which shows a pretty solid strike. The 1898 does look frosted on both sides but the obverse tone is strange. I have dipped coins like that only to watch the contrast vanish when the coin turned brilliant.

  • Options
    291fifth291fifth Posts: 23,944 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The photos are not good enough to make a call. Are they already in slabs of some sort?

    All glory is fleeting.
  • Options
    cheezhedcheezhed Posts: 5,689 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 27, 2023 3:13PM

    Very difficult to ascertain anything based solely on those photos.

    The 1878 reverse looks like VAM 31 but the obverse isn't matching.

    Many happy BST transactions
  • Options
    MrBlusterMrBluster Posts: 320 ✭✭✭

    I like the 1898 looks relatively mark free. As far as proof like would have to see it in hand. Are the fields blue?

  • Options
    DollarAfterDollarDollarAfterDollar Posts: 3,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 1898 looks like it is at least PL, It needs an acetone bath and better pictures. The hair details make it look off but again, picture quality. The 1878 looks Like an average MS 64 IMO.

    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  • Options
    lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,466 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Several things to comment one but will limit it to this one. Since it has not been mentioned - The 1898 appears to have black specs / fly specs over most of the obverse surface. Once seen for me I can not unsee it. You should check this when you get the coin and decide if it something that bothers you.
    This is only one area as they are in many others on the obverse.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • Options
    spyglassdesignspyglassdesign Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Straight grade probably... Dmpl? Not too likely. Our host is pretty strict on PL and dmpl.

    High grade? Too fuzzy... I'd say maybe mid ms if I HAD to guess.

  • Options
    gumby1234gumby1234 Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 1898 looks abnormal because it is so clean and mark free especially on a frosted cheek.

    Better pics will definitely be needed.

    Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM

  • Options
    spyglassdesignspyglassdesign Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @291fifth said:
    The photos are not good enough to make a call. Are they already in slabs of some sort?

    I noticed this too...

  • Options
    MizzouMizzou Posts: 463 ✭✭✭✭

    That '98 is the cat's ass

    Sometimes I think that animals are smarter than humans, animals would never allow the dumbest one to lead the pack

  • Options
    FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 2,854 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @gumby1234 said:
    The 1898 looks abnormal because it is so clean and mark free especially on a frosted cheek.

    Better pics will definitely be needed.

    This is exactly what I noticed. Upon a quick glance, my first impression was actually that the coin was a proof, but on closer inspection the reverse rims look a bit off for that.

    It could be one of those "California Proofs", just a normal PL, or an actual proof. Again, better images are necessary.

    Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.

  • Options
    AUandAGAUandAG Posts: 24,539 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Both have altered surfaces in my opinion. Neither is original skin.

    bob :)

    Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
  • Options
    dhikewhitneydhikewhitney Posts: 364 ✭✭✭

    I compared them with the PCGS photos for the same date and the stars and dots don’t look right; as others have mentioned it may just be that the posted photos are inadequate to guess. The surfaces on the 1878 look grainy. Post the label to see if it looks legit.

  • Options
    DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FlyingAl said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    The 1898 looks abnormal because it is so clean and mark free especially on a frosted cheek.

    Better pics will definitely be needed.

    This is exactly what I noticed. Upon a quick glance, my first impression was actually that the coin was a proof, but on closer inspection the reverse rims look a bit off for that.

    It could be one of those "California Proofs", just a normal PL, or an actual proof. Again, better images are necessary.

    “California proof” was the first thing that went through my head when I looked at the 98. Better pictures needed on that one for sure

  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 27, 2023 5:39PM

    I wont know until I get them. I have faith in the person who is selling them. They don't know how to take photos very well, like myself they are trying to learn. One thing I do know is that these Morgan's should be very very nice from what the seller says. If they have problems I can send them back. I really do appreciate the feedback. Whether or not these coins are beautiful, original, dmpl or cleaned, whizzed or fake it's still an education for me. I try to have faith in other people. This individual is selling some nice Morgan's. I have some already and if things go well I will buy more. I think most of us here at some point had to take a risk and buy some coins that were represented as "really nice", sometimes it works out and other times it does not. But when it does isn't it a good feeling to buy a nice coin?

  • Options
    DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Watchtower as long as you have a contingency such as a return option, you’re not doing anything wrong. Bad photography yields an array of different opinions and the 98 definitely looks a little weird in that photo. Just be sure to to quickly take better pictures of the coins and post them here when they arrive and we’ll do our best

  • Options
    telephoto1telephoto1 Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Pics are too hinky to get a good read but something looks off. Added frost? Looking forward to better images


    RIP Mom- 1932-2012
  • Options

    @DeplorableDan yes sir I will. I'll know as soon as I see them in hand. I've been looking at and learning about Morgan's for at least six months now. That doesn't mean much, however, I can definitely spot problems when I see them. Cleaned, whizzed all that lousy stuff is pretty easy. I don't know how good the fake coins can be but I'll come here for backup for sure. The seller seems like an honest person so I feel good about it. We will see. I'm hoping for the best. I agree the images leave a lot to the imagination that's for sure. So I am thinking positive and putting my trust out there. I think we all do at times.
    I look at some of the recent threads discussing some of the coins going back and fourth in action and being doctored up and some collector getting best for thousands and that really concerns me. This is not even close to that type of "trust"!

  • Options
    AdamLAdamL Posts: 165 ✭✭✭

    I think they look funny. I agree with @AUandAG altered surfaces

  • Options
    slider23slider23 Posts: 638 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 27, 2023 7:12PM

    It is not a good practice to buy raw Morgan DMPL's from photos. Evaluating mirror depth of a DMPL or PL from a still photo is extremely difficult and guessing comes into play in determining the different between 2", 4" or 6" mirror depth. Buying older holder DMPL's in also a slippery slop because the mirror standards changed. The 1898 coin looks photo shopped as there is almost no marks on the obverse. DMPL coins with 6" mirrors and frost devices highlight every mark in the field and cheek. Your going to be disappointed if you expect the coins to grade DMPL and if you get PL grades you did well.

  • Options
    PapiNEPapiNE Posts: 281 ✭✭✭

    The wing-neck gap on the 98 doesn't look right but maybe its the pics or my eyes.

    USAF veteran 1984-2005

  • Options
    crazyhounddogcrazyhounddog Posts: 13,816 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @lilolme said:
    Several things to comment one but will limit it to this one. Since it has not been mentioned - The 1898 appears to have black specs / fly specs over most of the obverse surface. Once seen for me I can not unsee it. You should check this when you get the coin and decide if it something that bothers you.
    This is only one area as they are in many others on the obverse.

    I’m with you my coin brother. I cannot stand the sight of fly specs. They bother me more than a root canal.

    The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
  • Options
    rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Watchtower ... The pictures could be better - for sure - However, that is what we have, and based on those, I would say neither are DMPL... or PL.... Probably around MS63, maybe 64. Hopefully, with better pictures, I can revise that opinion upward. ;) Cheers, RickO

  • Options
    MapsOnFireMapsOnFire Posts: 195 ✭✭✭

    Well, I may lose some friends in this thread. The 1878 is sharp, but stripped; an ordinary, not very attractive, coin.
    The 1898, at first glance, is out of this world beautiful. However, both sides have the painted-on look of those fake cameo Jefferson nickels.

  • Options

    @ricko said:
    @Watchtower ... The pictures could be better - for sure - However, that is what we have, and based on those, I would say neither are DMPL... or PL.... Probably around MS63, maybe 64. Hopefully, with better pictures, I can revise that opinion upward. ;) Cheers, RickO

    RickO I hope your right because that is what they are supposed to be. Your opinion holds a lot of water based on images alone. I can see easily by your comments that you mean no malice. I guess it boils down to taking the sellers word for this purchase. I hope in this case for your revision. We will know next week. Expect better images. Until then I'm sending out good vibes to everyone.

  • Options
    AtcarrollAtcarroll Posts: 343 ✭✭✭

    The coins are very hard to judge based on those pics, evidenced by the range of opinions given here. The 98 is either a really nice PL with deep, clean frost on the devices or a "California prooflike" with artificial frost created by chemical etching. I'd probably be able to tell which if i saw the coin in hand. The 78 looks AU in the pic of its obverse, but could also be a somewhat weakly frosted but still decent mid-MS semi-prooflike that didn't photograph well. I'd consider it a gamble to put down money on these two solely based on the photos, but i hope you did well instead of poorly on this purchase.

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 1898, in particular, doesn’t look anywhere close to natural. My guess is that artificial frost was applied to the obverse surface and/or that the images are either very poor or manipulated.
    I’m not a fan of the 1878, either and neither coin exhibits claims to being a DMPL.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 28, 2023 2:06PM

    Then I will need to be aware of these things when I receive the coins. This is important information to know and to be aware of. If I did not have your opinions I would be left with my own experience which is slowly, very slowly increasing.
    I did ask myself why am I buying these coins under these circumstances with this seller. You guys are smart and some of you will likely come out with that question.
    The answer is complicated. I have asked myself this question given the responses. I believe the seller is trying to show me interesting images.
    Call it a leap of faith. I like to think there are still good people left in this world. It's an old collection. I buy what I can when I can.
    I'll find out soon enough. I was promised cameo dmpl coins. I try not to let images bother me too much as I know images can be deceiving. This leads to another point. At least I am not getting doctored TV images which can and does occur.
    I think there is hope.

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Watchtower said:
    Then I will need to be aware of these things when I receive the coins. This is important information to know and to be aware of. If I did not have your opinions I would be left with my own experience which is slowly, very slowly increasing.
    I did ask myself why am I buying these coins under these circumstances with this seller. You guys are smart and some of you will likely come out with that question.
    The answer is complicated. I have asked myself this question given the responses. I believe the seller is trying to show me interesting images.
    Call it a leap of faith. I like to think there are still good people left in this world. It's an old collection. I buy what I can when I can.
    I'll find out soon enough. I was promised cameo dmpl coins. I try not to let images bother me too much as I know images can be deceiving. This leads to another point. At least I am not getting doctored TV images which can and does occur.
    I think there is hope.

    What do you mean by “I believe the seller is trying to show me interesting images.”?

    Yes, “there are still good people left in this world”, but that’s not sufficient reason to engage in a leap of faith. And not all good people who sell coins are expert at assessing them.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 28, 2023 2:40PM

    Mark I don't have any good answers for you. I get your points and they are valid.
    I'm not going to try to talk my way out of what was probably a stupid thing to do.
    I should have kept my money for something else.

  • Options
    AtcarrollAtcarroll Posts: 343 ✭✭✭

    @Watchtower said:
    Mark I don't have any good answers for you. I get your points and they are valid.
    I'm not going to try to talk my way out of what was probably a stupid thing to do.
    I should have kept my money for something else.

    Wait until you have the coins in hand, if they are nice you made a good buy, if they aren't you learn something. Take the opinions into consideration but reserve final judgement until then.

  • Options
    morgandollar1878morgandollar1878 Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It can be difficult to tell if a coin would be PL or DMPL just by pics alone. I will say though that the 1878 looks to have been cleaned, the surface of Liberty's face looks off.

    Instagram: nomad_numismatics
  • Options
    MS66MS66 Posts: 200 ✭✭✭

    @Atcarroll said:

    Wait until you have the coins in hand, if they are nice you made a good buy, if they aren't you learn something. Take the opinions into consideration but reserve final judgement until then.

    This is good advice. To the OP, keep in mind that many people online consider it good sport to rip apart anything they see.

    That means nothing pro or con about these specific examples, but so long as you have right of return it's not worth too much worry.

    The coins will (at a minimum) look at least slightly different from the photos. That's inevitable. No photo is perfect, and judgments made from them are necessarily tentative.

  • Options
    124Spider124Spider Posts: 848 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 29, 2023 6:40PM

    Neither coin looks right, to me.

    The 1898 has a pretty nice reverse, but an obverse that either has been whizzed or managed to acquire a significant amount of wear more than the reverse. Odd, to say the least.

    The 1878 is just really odd, to my eye. Both sides seem artificially sharp where there's detail (while not being smooth where it's supposed to be smooth), leaving the impression of an overly-aggressive counterfeit.

  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 29, 2023 6:05AM

    I learned a lot from this thread. More than I thought I would. Hopefully things turn out for the best. If they don't I will return the coins. It's good to know that I am not alone in this. If you folks had not told me what issues I need to look for they may have slipped by me. For that I am grateful.
    This is another one of the coins I purchased from this seller. I have bought from them before.
    This coin is magnificent in my opinion. The mirrors are amazing.

  • Options
    NickelMikeNickelMike Posts: 190 ✭✭✭

    Both look very questionable to me. I look forward to better pictures.

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Watchtower said:
    I learned a lot from this thread. More than I thought I would. Hopefully things turn out for the best. If they don't I will return the coins. It's good to know that I am not alone in this. If you folks had not told me what issues I need to look for they may have slipped by me. For that I am grateful.
    This is another one of the coins I purchased from this seller. I have bought from them before.
    This coin is magnificent in my opinion. The mirrors are amazing.

    Hopefully, that’s not what the coin looks like, either with or without a reflection.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options

    Can you elaborate?

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Watchtower said:
    Can you elaborate?

    Because the images don’t show what the coin’s surfaces look like, other than something from a cartoon.

    You’ll be able to converse more effectively here if, when replying to specific posts, you first click on “quote” beneath the post to which you’re replying. It looks like this:

    Flag Quote · Agree Like LOL

    I don’t claim to know how accurate the pictures which you’ve posted to this thread, are. However, if they’re even close to realistic, the coins, themselves, are questionable, at best.
    On the other hand, if the pictures are highly inaccurate, there are countless other sellers who provide far better ones. And many of those other sellers offer large numbers of professionally graded coins of this type.
    The fact that you’ve been buying ungraded coins leads me to suspect that you’re attempting to save money and/or to get bargains. There’s nothing wrong with trying to save money. But based on my experience, the vast majority of buyers who proceed this way, end up with sub-par and/or problem coins and bad deals, not good ones.

    I’ve tried to caution you more then once and don’t want to over-do it, so this will be my last post to this thread.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 29, 2023 7:32AM

    Thank you for that Mark. Your accurate on all counts. I am in no way challenging what you are saying so please don't read things the wrong way. I respect your opinion and really do appreciate your insight. I know your a professional so I listen to you. Yes it makes me feel uneasy, why?
    Because it should.

  • Options
    TomBTomB Posts: 20,733 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Either the image of the 1898 is highly manipulated or the 1898 itself is highly manipulate or both. There is nothing about the 1898 that looks like an original surfaced coin with an honest, quality image. The 1878 looks tired; perhaps it is dipped-out, but it may be PL. The images of the 1886 on the Rice Krispies material are just bizarre, but the next set of images are out-of -focus and might show hairlines on the reverse.

    TLDR; I think you are too trusting.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • Options
    johnny010johnny010 Posts: 1,090 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Keep it up Watchtower
    You’re trying and listening

  • Options
    DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't like this. The "shadows" around the stars normally indicate some type of surface manipulation, and there are some deep hits in front of her nose. Also looks to be quite a bit of chatter in the fields and I think the seller is purposely sending you deceiving images to peak your interest. Another thing I've been doing with sellers is asking for a video of the coin, and many are happy to oblige these days. I would run far away from this seller.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file