I would not be a buyer of this coin. Appears to have been over dipped or maybe it just had a lot of heavy toning on it. Besides, if it was a problem free coin it would not be in an SEGS holder on EBAY. JMHO.
In an insane society, a sane person will appear to be insane.
A lot of morgans way back when went through a sand blasting process to achieve a cameo affect. Is this one of them? Don't know would have to see it in person but they are still out there somewhere.
Bill
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
A 1902-S in DMPL is a TOUGH coin. Your first reaction to seeing this auction has to be, "Why isn't it in a real grading service's holder?" My bet is because:
1. It isn't a DMPL 2. It isn't a 63
The seller himself is telling you it is not a 63DMPL by having a BIN price that is less than half of Grey Sheet. I repeat: Less than half.
Considering PCGS has graded 1 1902-S DM (MS-62) this is rare indeed. But if that's a DMPL, that guy needs a new camera.
That humanity at large will ever be able to dispense with artificial paradises seems unlikely. Most men and women lead lives at the worst so painful, and at the best so monotonous, poor, and limited, that the urge to escape, the longing to transcend themselves, if only for a few moments, is and always has been one of the principal appetites of the soul.
Interesting. I agree it isn't a very "eye-appealing" coin and I concede SEGS isn't my favorite grading company, particularly in regards to the grades they assign, however, this is just FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES only as it pertains to the assessments of the 1902-S:
"Very weakly struck is the norm for this issue with heavy planchet striations across the head, eagle and parts of the fields showing quite often. Full strikes are occasionally seen however. Luster is usually good.... Proof-likes are quite rare and have little contrast."
With that said: I didn't see any striations, nor does it look like a full strike. No mention is made of the coin in DMPL, (not to say they don't exist), but a legitmate DMPL would probably garner good money.
I think its an overgraded, overhyped average coin, that may have some surface issues, but I don't see evidence of whizzing.
WWBillman Morgan "DIES" were sandblasted for achieve the contrast, not the planchets/coins themselves, if you didn't know.
Gilbert, are you saying that may be a problem free MS coin? It sure looks worked over to me, of course the image isn't good enough to tell exactly what, but it sure has the cleaned look to me. Doesn't look anything like my 02-S.
You are correct the mint DID sandblast the design area of the dies while the fields were protected BUT just as with the 1943 cents, some dollars were reprocessed to improve their appearance. The process was copied from the mint and fine grain sandblasting was used to give them a frosted appearance. The fine grain sandblasting can be easly overlooked with the unaided eye and a magnifier is required to detect it.
Bill
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Thanks for the follow-up. I took a look at the Q&A and although it doesn't come across as clearly as it should, I do believe he is talking about "post mint" alterations.
He states, "Apparently the process was copied from methods used at the Mint, where the design area of the DIE was sandblasted ..." He goes on to state that it is considered an alteration, eliminates colletor value and recommends against purchasing "frosted" coins without checking them for this, in addition to this being a response to a question about "coins being frosted after they were struck," we can all safely conclude that he is talking about:
"altered coins"
WWBillman, I apologize if you were simply stating you believed the coin to be artificially frosted. Maybe I misinterpreted your responses as though you believed this was a legitmate process.
In any event, this FYI may serve as educational fodder or a refresher for others.
For anyone interested in the attributes of the strike of this coin, compare the 02-s from SEGS (which started this thread) with this `02-s from NGC in this link.
Although I do not collect Morgan Dollars (yet), I cannot see how anyone can call this DMPL.
However, the thing you should be most concerned with is the fact that you, yourself, are hesitating with regards to buying this coin.
Every coin that I am proud to own was a coin that I instantly knew I had to have. As for the dogs that I have (or once had) owned, in ever case I thought twice about buying, but did so against my better judgement.
lava
Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭
Comments
Brian.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
1. It isn't a DMPL
2. It isn't a 63
The seller himself is telling you it is not a 63DMPL by having a BIN price that is less than half of Grey Sheet. I repeat: Less than half.
-- Dennis
Aldous Huxley
Yabba dabba doo.
Fred Flintstone
"Very weakly struck is the norm for this issue with heavy planchet striations across the head, eagle and parts of the fields showing quite often. Full strikes are occasionally seen however. Luster is usually good.... Proof-likes are quite rare and have little contrast."
With that said: I didn't see any striations, nor does it look like a full strike. No mention is made of the coin in DMPL, (not to say they don't exist), but a legitmate DMPL would probably garner good money.
I think its an overgraded, overhyped average coin, that may have some surface issues, but I don't see evidence of whizzing.
WWBillman
Morgan "DIES" were sandblasted for achieve the contrast, not the planchets/coins themselves, if you didn't know.
You are correct the mint DID sandblast the design area of the dies while the fields were protected BUT just as with the 1943 cents, some dollars were reprocessed to improve their appearance. The process was copied from the mint and fine grain sandblasting was used to give them a frosted appearance. The fine grain sandblasting can be easly overlooked with the unaided eye and a magnifier is required to detect it.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
What's you source and can you provide an example of a Morgan dollar that meets this criteria?
My source June 10, 2003 Numismatic News, Coin Clinic by Alan Herbert page 38
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Thanks for the follow-up. I took a look at the Q&A and although it doesn't come across as clearly as it should, I do believe he is talking about "post mint" alterations.
He states, "Apparently the process was copied from methods used at the Mint, where the design area of the DIE was sandblasted ..." He goes on to state that it is considered an alteration, eliminates colletor value and recommends against purchasing "frosted" coins without checking them for this, in addition to this being a response to a question about "coins being frosted after they were struck," we can all safely conclude that he is talking about:
"altered coins"
WWBillman,
I apologize if you were simply stating you believed the coin to be artificially frosted. Maybe I misinterpreted your responses as though you believed this was a legitmate process.
In any event, this FYI may serve as educational fodder or a refresher for others.
We are on the same page sorry if it did not come out that way. I was trying to state it could be an altered coin frosted after the minting process.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Link to NGC 1902-s in pl
However, the thing you should be most concerned with is the fact that you, yourself, are hesitating with regards to buying this coin.
Every coin that I am proud to own was a coin that I instantly knew I had to have. As for the dogs that I have (or once had) owned, in ever case I thought twice about buying, but did so against my better judgement.
TRUST YOUR GUT!