Morgan Graded MS65 - Everyone thought it was AT

Lori

Ok... I posted this coin a while ago and just about everyone said it was AT. So I sent it to ANACS for grading. I just got my grade for it and it was a MS65. I called them and they said the graders did not think it was artificialy toned. Now is ANACS pretty good at that kind of grading. If it was so obvious to you guys why would they not think it was. The lady told me that if the graders thought it was AT they do put that on the slab. I would like your imput on this. Here is a picture of the coin again.



Lori

jbsteven

interesting.

I would take their word for it as I am sure they could be called experts

i like it

FC57Coins

Congratulations Lori:

I guess everyone can make mistakes - just goes to show you that sometimes people just get jittery over certain types of toning. Now, having said that, I wonder if the fact that you got it slabbed at ANACS might have something to do with this. Personally I think that if it had been slabbed by NGC or PCGS it would definitely have raised an eyebrow or two. Anyway, congrats!

Frank

Lori

With all the threads on AT Morgans I thought this would show that sometimes it might look AT but it really isn't. This coin had lots of luster in the parts that were not toned. If it was AT wouldn't the coins white areas have been dull? Now I will have to consider sending it to PCGS for a crossover. I know it might not grade MS65 but that would be ok. I liked the coin from the begining and that is why I bought it. AT or not. I am thrilled it is not considered AT.

Lori

FC57Coins

Lori:

Remember that what you have is an opinion. Depending on how a coin may have been treated, it may or may not affect the luster of the coin. I'm not trying to put your coin down, but if I were you, I'd be glad that it's in a slab. Consider the fact that the 1896 is a common date, and that ANACS sometimes grades a little bit higher (not always) than PCGS or NGC. If you're willing to live with an MS64 grade out of PCGS, or worse, have it be returned to you as a non crossover and lose your money in the process, then go for it. Otherwise, if you just wanted to get it slabbed, you're already ahead of the game there.

Frank

nwcs

The link isn't working for me for the images.

It's certainly possible that an image can give a false positive for AT. It depends a lot on the photography and any manipulations. Some AT coins are really obvious, but some are not if you can't see it in person. Some of the ones discussed this weekend were obvious, but some I just can't tell till I see it. Still, it all ends up being the same: an opinion.

Neil

dwood

Lori,
I'm not seeing the pic?

But congratulations on the wonderful news! I couldn't be happier for you, honestly. Your enthusiasm is one of the better facets of this forum. Congrats again!

dorkkarl

i'd say it is a-t, but market acceptable.

anacs is very, very good, btw.

K S

Lori

I attached a photo because my webhost is down. Of course it happens when I need it to host a photo. See attachment for the photo. Thanks.

Lori

nwcs

Looking at it, I can see why it could be called AT (the non dorkkarl definition of AT) by some and natural by others. THAT IS, by looking at the photo only. It is the clear lines that people were looking at and the color going over parts of LIBERTY and the hair which can be another thing to look for. Yet these aren't always clear cut. Seeing it in person would probably be the deciding factor. This coin is not like some of the obvious ones like this one:




(auction)

Tonekiller

I would not call the coin AT'ed at all.


TBT

jbsteven

tbt...the one at the top of the page or the one a post above yours?

Singapore

I didn't see the earlier post, but would offer the following general totally unoriginal comments:

Grading is subjective. Crack out the coin and resubmit it to ANACs and any other service and sometimes it might come back as AT, sometimes it won't. Thats just how 3rd party grading is.

The holder is only definitive 'proof' of the grade only if when you go to sell the coin the person buying it agrees that its a 65 and they like the toning.

I have seen countless coins in PCGS, NGC and ANACS holders that are overgraded, undergraded, etc.

Having said all that, I think your coin looks original. But if I were to post on a different day I might change my mind.

Russ

Congratulations Lori!

Russ, NCNE

paigowjohnny

Don't bother with trying a crossover attempt...save your money. It's a pretty coin, and you have it slabbed by a reputable company with a very good grade. Why tempt fate....


Edited to add a quote from another thread....



<< <i>This is one more example of how slavish brand loyalty can cost you money. >>

BillJones

I didn't see the coin at the top of this post the first time around. If I had, I would have called it natural. The second that is under nwcs' post is definitely AT.

Lori

Here is the thread when I asked the first time if it was real or AT.

Thread

Lori

FC57Coins

Looking at the original auction photos and going by what the "gurus" on the board have taught me I would have still passed on this coin for the following reasons. First of all, in the original photos the toning looks "pasty". Having seen quite a number of "originally" toned and some fakes, the originally toned coins seem to have a certain transluscence about them that AT coins don't have. Note on the picture that Lori posted in the first post of this thread that the coin looks different. The second red flag for me was that in the original coin, the toning seemed to be much stronger on the reverse than in the second picture. Again, this would have thrown a red flag for me. The third red flag was the toning pattern on the obverse which on the original picture has that "pooled liquid" look. You will recall that numerous examples that we have seen on here have that same quality. The fourth red flag is the fact that in the original picture the toning bleeds over the rims of the coin. Note that on the new picture the rims do not appear to be toned. The final red flag is that on the original picture, the letters appear toned in the same color as the background toning. Again, these are all diagnostics we've discussed on here and are discussed in the Toning Video.

I'm very glad that Lori was not taken for a ride, and that the coin turned out to be genuine. Unlike some members, I reserve judgement on ANACS because their pool of graders, if I'm not mistaken, is rather small, but that's a different thread all together. Given the original picture and the discussions that we've had on here, I would still hold to my original decision not to go after this coin, but I would certainly love to hear what others have to say on the matter.

Frank

nwcs

I, too, am happy that this coin was slabbable and even happier that Lori enjoys it! I'm also happy that I said this in the original thread:

"The reverse looks real to me. It's funny that the flip said MS 63 in the auction picture but the guy said it was MS 64. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is real all the way. I'm going mostly by the way the toning lies in the date and hair. But it could also have some real toning with AT added in. "

greghansen

Lori- O.K. I'll confess. I'm sure I am one of the knuckleheads that voted for AT. Guess that's why I'm not working for ANACS, huh? Congratulations on your find, and this is one time I am quite pleased to be wrong. Thank you also, for providing me with an opportunity to work on my modesty! LOL.

Russ

Hey, cool! I just read myself in that thread:



<< <i>Personally, and I'm a complete rookie so it really doesn't mean anything, I don't think the coin is AT. The toning is too dark, and I'm wondering why anybody would try to fake it like that. Also, the pattern is very similar to many I've seen holdered, and the toning splashes out on to the rims as it should.

I also think that this coin is going to look much better in person than it does in that scan. I'm seeing wisps of color that normally don't show all that well when done with a scanner. >>



Please allow me to feel good for a minute here.

Nwcs,

I see that you also said it was real in that thread.

Russ, NCNE

Dog97

Congrats Lori! I'm glad it turned out ok. Please don't remind everybody that I said "it probably wouldn't pass at a service." It would be interesting to see if it passes muster at PCGS. I'm betting it won't. You gotta admit there's a world of difference between this pict that we opinioned:



and what ANACS saw:

gemtone65

Lori: I remember seeing this coin posted and thinking to myself, "I'm not so sure it is AT." Also, some of our most expert forum members on toning did not comment on this piece, while TBT did comment quite unambiguously that it was not AT.

So, I think that judging the accuracy of a response simply by a poll of the members is not necessarily the best way to ascertain a coin's originality. Some opinions are worth more than others.

By the way, the current scan is much clearer than the one shown in January. And, you are right about the luster. The less disturbed is the luster under the toning, the more likely is it that the toning is original, all other things being equal.

BillJones

Yes, if you had shown me only the first picture, I would have said AT. Maybe the second picture makes it look TOO GOOD!

stman

Lori, glad to see the results on this coin. While I have no problem being wrong..... I think the first Pic is why we all felt the way we did. I think ( but not sure ) I mentioned it might look that way due to improper storage or a little environment damage. Which I still feel the same way. It has a few pooled areas of color, and looks like something sat on it that was damp.

jom

The obverse still looks AT to me...but to each there own!

jom

eagle7

Only GOD knows what it really is. I would be happy that it is in an ANACS holder and forget about crossing it. I doubt if PCGS would cross it at all. If you just want to spend some extra money and try it for fun, go ahead. Please let us know what the results are. As has already been mentioned, grading is an opinion, not a fact. Just because ANACS chose to put it in a slab does not mean that it is or isnt anything in anyone else's holder.