1895 PROOF Morgan - CASE CLOSED - ALL 4 OBV DIES SHOWN NONE MATCH - ALTERED DATE LIKELY

magikbilly

Hi All,
now, what do you suppose this could be on Coppercoins 95 Morgan? It is not his - he just photographed it and said it was slabbed. I found this S using nothing but resizing, contrast and brightness - in just 1 minute. Of course, I added the WHITE circle but there is another subtle one in BOTH scans that I did not add. And I thought I was going to find it with the inversion tool LOL.
I dunno..looks like..a f....h...e...u...v....w..g...a...t..w......S!
I am NOT trying to come down on you Coppercoins. Just sharing what I found. Now, if I only knew something about mintmarks (don't own any mintmarked coins and seldom have) and Morgan $'s - I am sure there are many other ways to ID this as a business strike (apart from the obvious) - even if the S was not ridiculously visible.


Best,
Lt. Columbo

PS - Oh Sir? Pardon me Sir, there was just one thing more, it probably doesn't mean much...you know, Mrs. Columbo likes details..she'd just love to know who slabbed it?


1895 PR (Poor Removal)
Original scan on left unaltered.............Scan after resizing, brightness and contrast adjustment - nothing more - on right

Coppercoins original scan has been pulled by him (I and others can see the S and repair in this image as can many of you - it is up above on ther left in enlarged detail)

ER

Pardon me Lt, but Mrs. Columbo requests that you kindly put the evidence back to the original thread.

magikbilly

Hi Er,
I would, but I think that people should see what you can do with 45 seconds and Photoshop - can save $. More exposure this way and I think it is important.

Best wishes for a GREAT HOLIDAY to ALL

Billy

ER

darktone

Excellent work Billy! I suspect that since this coin is described as being slabbed it is in one of the third tier grading service holders- I would love to hear more info on this coin. Removed mint mark? filled die? polished die? mike

darktone

Billy asked me to post these pics because his were just red X's

seanq

I see JPG artifacts, I don't see a mintmark. There are similar patterns to the one you highlighted in several places on that image, just because that one happens to be under the wreath you assume it is a mintmark. Sometimes the eye sees what it wants to see.


Sean Reynolds

K6AZ

Edited to clear out of this mess.

lava

coppercoins

By the way, scans cannot produce the quality in my image. It is a photo, and has been deleted from the server. I made a mistake sharing it here, and have learned my lesson. End of story.

Furthermore, I use state of the art equipment, including a registered, licensed copy of Adobe CS, which includes Photoshop 8. I think I know wht I'm doing when it comes to photography - I don't know or care to know about many of the coins I shoot, I'm paid to shoot them...just like the expenses paid trip I'll be taking to the Smithsonian this coming month to photograph rare gold for an upcoming book - which answers for my recent purchase of a new camera, light meter, and copy stand, and my question the other day about photographing coins at the Smithsonian.

I had planned on showing the photos here, but won't be doing that now. I've learned my lesson well.

magikbilly

Hi All,
I don't know about you some of you but I and several others here and in in the original thread (where the original pic has been removed for some reason) can and do see a obvious S mm on the original scan which is enlarged here - complete with a "circle" (no, not the white one I put there) around it denoting the edge of the "work" - if that is not an S and there is no circle of work around it what else is that on a 95 Morgan in that location? I still would like to know who slabbed it as Proof. I did nothing to create that S - and it is an S with a circle of strangeness around it. In my adjusted scan the S is 90% visible and surrounded by something. Does that coin look Proof? Some of the people complaining about my posts in these 2 threads happen to be the same people who proclaimed it obviously genuine. More than 1 person saw and commented about the visible S before I even posted to this topic for the first time - just look at the original thread now called "Photo deleted. Skip this thread". The point of all this was to show what a few moments in Photoshop could do with the intent of sharing "tools" to help people when having to make judgments from scans - which we most all do - something I thought might help someone some day save a bit of $$ - especially on eBay and the like. SORRY - not.


Best,
Billy

kieferscoins

<< <i>I had planned on showing the photos here, but won't be doing that now. I've learned my lesson well. >>



Oh geez.

You have great pics and keeping them from us does not make sense.

Cameron Kiefer

jbsteven

wow coppercoins you are quite a baby.

where is that crying baby picture? It sure would go good right about now.

Coinhusker1

Coppercoins, can you at least let us know who certified the coin? Thanks.

Wolf359

The photo I saw was an obvious circulated 1895 Proof Morgan. Blowing up a small photo like that to expose an 's' is dubious at best. The detail is just not there to confirm ANYTHING that tiny. Areas near the rim are notorious for showing bumps, etc that are just not there on the coin.

It's not even CD's rare Morgan as he said in the original thread. Members here are encouraged to share, not be bashed when they do. What is the point of this thread? Really. It's not like CD was trying to run a scam on anybody.

There was nothing here to "expose" and personally I believe you owe CD an apology.

Edited to change "scan" to "photo".-

jbsteven

wolf

the image at the top of this thread has something that looks like a S at exactly the spot where a mintmark should be. if it was a little more hazy or hard to see I would agree with you but this one looks like a S was on the coin to me.

magikbilly

Wow.

1) I never suggested anyone, especially CD, was scamming anyone.

2) More than 1 person commented about seeing the S in the original post from the original photo - since pulled down. (can't we know who slabbed it?)

2) The scan is the same - I do not appreciate any suggestion that it is not

3) I changed "Expose" to "Found" - that is what factually happened - I found an S. It is not my fault.

4) I never slammed CD's photography skills.

Billy

poorguy

I personally think that the above scan/photo whatever holds no basis on if there is an 'S' mintmark on the coin or not. From personal experience I can say that even slight discolorations on a coin can make it appear to have "ghost" mintmarks or the remains of one.

Do you actually think that an 'S' mintmark would be so obvious that it would show up in a photograph when it wasn't noticed by somebody holding the coin unless it's merely a discoloration coincidentaly with a vague 'S' shape?

I had an 1886 Morgan slabbed by NGC and when I scanned it there was a very clear 'O' exactly where the mintmark should be. It was only a small toning patch that was just barely a darker shade than the rest of that area of the coin.

The bottom line, unless you can see the coin personally, it is impossible to know for sure. So any remark against a photoshopped enlargement of a photo that is as blurry as the last UFO photograph I saw, in my opinion, just cannot possibly be the basis for the argument you present.

I'm not saying what the coin is or isn't, I'm just presenting the fact that the proof for the basis of this argument has no foundation.

JRocco

Just for the records. I would personally vouch for the integrity of Chuck. He is as honest as they come and I would trust him with the keys to my house(s)

kieferscoins

I agree. I understand it is not his coin. Why can't he just say what slab it is in? Maybe that will explain stuff. Maybe it is just a toning spot.

Cameron Kiefer

ss350camaro

once you blow up a pic you can see almost anything you want to see if you look hard enough.

i can plainly see a D and a Z to the right of the supposed S.

does that mean that there was a D and a Z there at one time? I highly doubt it.

I didn't get to see the original pic(s) that CD posted, but just going by the blown up pixelated pics here, i would say the "guessing" that there is a removed mint mark is pure baloney.

I would love to see the original photo(s) if anyone saved them?

CD,

Please re-post them?

poorguy

Why can't he just say what slab it is in?

I would think he is respecting the owner of the coin.

IrishMike

Anyone who can look at either of those photos and decide firmly in their own mind what that coin really is, is a far better numismatist than I.

tradedollarnut

This is a huge image of an NGC certified 1895. It appears to have something in the mintmark area as well. Since I highly doubt NGC would miss a removed mintmark, I'm left to consider that one can't jump to conclusions off an image - no matter how large.

JRocco

coppercoins

Why can't he just say what slab it is in?

Perhaps I don't care to. Maybe I don't know who slabbed the coin since I was commissioned to photograph the coin, not the slab. In fact, I had to go to great lengths to have the slab NOT show.

The original photo, unaltered, of the coin shows a slight difference in color that was exaggerated by the resizing, level change, and sharpening for print. The print photo was then resized 10:1 to fit the internet. Mr. Billy should perhaps learn that Photoshop changes pixels every time you edit, which is why taking an edited version of an edited photo, then further editing it does nothing but further distort the truth, just like his accusations that I was trying to pull something by using "exposed" as the term for his unfounded findings...as if I were trying to sell that lump of silver.

For those who must see it, here is a small clip (large enough to show detail) of the suspect area of the original photo. You will see that Mr. Billy's mintmark is nothing but a blur of color, likely a fingerprint. I have also reinstated the original resized photo that started the thread in the first place. I have nothing to hide, I just don't like the subject of my art (photography) played with, digitized further, copied, or messed with. I posted the image here as art, not as a toy for some beginner to play with.

I will be re-examining the coin under a microscope Friday. I don't expect to find anything other than a proof 1895 dollar.

Furthermore, this subject has wasted far too much of my valuable time. I do not like having to defend something I don't know much about. I also do not have the coin in hand, so I cannot immediately re-examine it....but I don't like the implications that I'm a crook. I do have a reputation to uphold, and I think bashing me for a coin I don't even own is pretty crappy.

kieferscoins

<< <i>Maybe I don't know who slabbed the coin since I was commissioned to photograph the coin, not the slab >>



Okay.

Cameron Kiefer

magikbilly

Hi All,
I know what I saw, and more importantly, I know what most who saw the original photograph (before it was pulled briefly and returned) had to say because they posted what they thought. Yes, before I even posted to this topic CD was defending the coin and asserting the non- presence of an S. I will accept freely whatever the truth is and offer whatever apologies are in order - should the truth actually become known in this forum (the slab would be good). I will state that the image I posted in all my threads was the original image - I did NOT add anything. Just read the original thread before I posted.

Best,
Billy

coppercoins

EXCUSE me....but what you "saw" is exactly what you can again see. I did NOT re-edit the photo, I simply reuploaded it. The clip in my last post is the exact photo as it came from the camera, untouched. I do not appreciate insinuation otherwise.

Russ

<< <i>Why can't he just say what slab it is in?

Perhaps I don't care to. Maybe I don't know who slabbed the coin since I was commissioned to photograph the coin, not the slab. >>



If you check around the outside of the coin, that plastic thing it's housed in will be the slab. At the top there is a label that will tell you who slabbed it.

Russ, NCNE

kieferscoins

He doesn't care Russ. His commission was for the coin and not the slab.

Perhaps Russ, Perhaps.

Cameron Kiefer

Stuart

This is a very interesting thread, from a numismatic educational point of view. My obervations and questions are:

1) The strike and overall appearance of the coin do not look like a typical proof Morgan

2) The area of controversy that has an "S" ghost-like shadow appearance is not positioned properly to be the remnant of a potentially removed "S" mintmark. If in this position, the mintmark would have been partially stamped over the "O" in Dollar below.

3) The strike and appearance of the coin seem to me to be more like a Philadephia Mint or a New Orleans "O" mint business strike Morgan, rather than a Philadephia minted Proof Morgan.

4) Would someone happen to know if proof dies used for the 1895 Morgan were perhaps altered from a branch mint, such that they had to remove the mintmark before striking the proof coins? If so, there could be some remnants of a mintmark on a genuine proof coin. (I admit this is a bit of a stretch and a long-shot).

This thread is stimulating some interesting intellectual discussion as well as a bit of controversy.

kieferscoins

5.) Will not say (or care for that matter) what company it was slabbed by even though he had it in his hands.

Cameron Kiefer

magikbilly

CD,
I never slammed your photography skills, and I changed the word "exposed" quite a while ago. It means what you took it to mean when you get to the 5th or 6th definition in my websters. I also already posted that the coin was not yours, that you were not trying to scam anyone, and the point I was making was that people were questioning the S before I came on the scene - and many did after I came on the scene - nothing more. Anyway, thread title is "Found" - not "Exposed". Once you show the slab - since you will be seeing the coin in hand on Friday I hope you can reveal the grading service - I will promptly apologize. It is unfortunate that you don't have any reference photographs that show the slab. Was it white or clear? Perhaps this influenced how you took the image considering it "is" a Proof - perhaps you will remember? I would hope that I could remember what service it was if I was shooting a 95 Proof Morgan bit you may shoot many coins like that in a week. I will publicly apologize when I see the slab. I have no issue with your photography skills whatsoever.

To everyone else,
Does this really look like a Proof Morgan to you? Other than the year and lack of MM, if I just handed this to you would you think "Proof!"? I would not. I don't necessarily see hard wire rims in the newly posted enlargement. We will see what the truth is hopefully - I can handle it when I am wrong (and when I am right) and won't be quitting CU every 3 months - in other words you are stuck with me guys and gals (and you know that means more wood posts )

Billy

kryptonitecomics

CD,

I have to admit it looked like a removed MM and the coin did not and does not look like a proof to me. You close up photo does not show a removed mint mark to me and since I have never owned a 1895 Proof I can certainly be mistaken about it being a business stike. I hope that you will relaize that these statements and the statements were not meant as personal attacks to you, the coin, your photographs, but if that's how you took them than I for one am sorry I ever posted to the original thread.

We all know you are a stand up guy, you take a heck of a lot better photos then I ever will, and your photos would certainly add to the caliber of these boards, so please do not take these things as bashing as I truly don't believe that was anyone's intention.

I truly believe in perception being reality, which means for you it was bashing regardless of what we all believe....again....not disrespect to you......I think we are all sorry for any misunderstanding

MadMarty

I have seen some circulated PF53 1895 Morgans at auction, you would not know that they are proofs. It is very hard to photograph luster on AU coins. Billy, you can say it looks like the MM was removed, and leave it at that. You HAVE NOT seen the coin in person, so you DON'T know 100% proof positive that the coin has been altered. I thought it was really cool that CC shared the coin with us. If the coin has or has not been altered or not is between the owner and the company who slabbed it. I have seen too many people here throw out wild accucations that were proved inaccurate afterwards. So everyone relax and get ready for turkey and football tomorrow.....

magikbilly

I agree I am not trying to bash anyone. I'll apologize for any of that right now - I am sorry. If I stated anywhere 100% that this IS a removed MM I recant and state I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE IT - as in MY OPINION.

"...as you know Sir, in the heat of action men are likely forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away" - Kasper Gutman, The Maltese Falcon 1941

Best,
Billy

PS - obviously I know nothing at all about photography - just look in my sig line at the unique unpublished print and slide from my personal collections. Clearly the collection of a novice

nwcs

If you look carefully, you'll see it's really an advertising subliminal. It says SEX under the wreath. People buying those Morgans were sure to become perverts.

Honestly, I can see what the ruckus is about. But I keep a few things in mind when evaluating a photo:

1. A picture barely represents a coin
2. Photoshop is a great tool, but it can lead you down bad paths
3. Consistent display of color/detail between original and camera and computer representation of photo and each person's different monitors, and lighting conditions in the room can dramatically alter how you perceive a photo
4. That detail is always lost in a standard 72 pixel display from what is originally captured.

techeff

The coin that TDN posted certainly makes an interesting point.

Wolf359

I have seen some circulated PF53 1895 Morgans at auction, you would not know that they are proofs.

Spoken like the gentleman you are Marty! Guys, look at the huge squared off rims, denticles, and surface. That's no business strike.

MadMarty

<< <i>I have seen some circulated PF53 1895 Morgans at auction, you would not know that they are proofs.

Spoken like the gentleman you are Marty! Guys, look at the huge squared off rims, denticles, and surface. That's no business strike. >>



I was talking about luster wise

Bochiman

Billy is using his great genius and magic again to enlighten the stupid masses.....next, he will show it isn't really Lady Liberty on the Morgan dollar but rather a space alien!
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode


btw.....what is interesting is that a member took a pic, tried to show it and share, and starts getting people semi-attacking him for something that isn't even his
Even by the title of this thread you can see the negative tones "DEBUNKED" it says "photoshop can save you $$" it says. What about all the times photoshop can cost you?
What about buying expensive items from someone you trust, return policy, and sight seen?

I guess it is just more fun to be a Geraldo Rivera type and be controversial?

magikbilly

Hello there,
just as in the other thread where you were nipping at my heels - I WAS NOT THE FIRST TO QUESTION THIS COIN OR POINT OUT THE "S". Read the original thread here-

Original Thread

I'll give you points this time for not going "WAAAAA" again, or mentioning my Mother or making fun of my name Billy. As far as Geraldo, my nose in not broken nor will it be, and we will see what is in Capone's vault on Friday. Either way, I will accept the results of the slab (assuming top 3) with grace.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Billy

ksteelheader

I'll say this and be gone!

Billy, why are you always leading people on a little path to your way of thinking? Your posts are almost always of the type where you are attacking someone or somebody. (Wood cases or Red Lobster, to mention two that come to mind! Oh, yes, and you don't dip coins! You're just their caretakers! ) Your way of thinking is always of the thought that you are right and everyone else is wrong!

Chuck is one great fellow and did not need any of your BS or insinuations!

JMO

Ken

K6AZ

<< <i>I'll say this and be gone!

Billy, why are you always leading people on a little path to your way of thinking? Your posts are almost always of the type where you are attacking someone or somebody. (Wood cases or Red Lobster, to mention two that come to mind! Oh, yes, and you don't dip coins! You're just their caretakers! ) Your way of thinking is always of the thought that you are right and everyone else is wrong!

Chuck is one great fellow and did not need any of your BS or insinuations!

JMO

Ken >>

Tonekiller

<< <i>

<< <i>I'll say this and be gone!

Billy, why are you always leading people on a little path to your way of thinking? Your posts are almost always of the type where you are attacking someone or somebody. (Wood cases or Red Lobster, to mention two that come to mind! Oh, yes, and you don't dip coins! You're just their caretakers! ) Your way of thinking is always of the thought that you are right and everyone else is wrong!

Chuck is one great fellow and did not need any of your BS or insinuations!

JMO

Ken >>



>>






Hhahahahahahah, good one Eric. Goes for you also.

seanq

Well if nothing else, we finally got Eric and TBT to agree on something.


Sean Reynolds

ksteelheader

<< <i>Well if nothing else, we finally got Eric and TBT to agree on something. >>

Hey, every once in a while I do something right!

MrEureka

First, my apologies for the big picture, but I think it's worth it.

Now, here's the obverse of a circ proof 95:



Here's a picture of the "debunked" coin:



Please compare the 5's in the dates of the coins - shape of the digits and position relative to denticles - and let me know what you think.

Stuart

Andy: It would be helpful and I believe instructive to have enlarged side-by-side images of the 1895 dates of both coins for better visual comparison.

Although it's very difficult for me to discern with such a small date on the subject coin, but I believ that the shape and positioning of the 5's are different on these two coins.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the subject coin does not appear to me to have either the strong strike or the mirrored surfaces (even if dulled some by circulation) characteristic of a proof Morgan Dollar. I also don't think that the rim and denticles are those of a proof Morgan.

The subject coin appears to have more of a frosty luster than a Proof type luster. -- Just my own opinion based on only seeing the image and not the actual coin...

jbsteven

for the record I think CC's picture CLEARLY shows a S mintmark. The coin also does not look like a proof to me.