<< <i>but why can't we find out who slabbed it? >>
Maybe he would have told us if he had been asked to in a nice manner! Instead, we had a resident dissenter put up some more of his babbling and rambling ideas!
Your side-by-side date image comparison of the two coins irrefutably illustrates that those two dates were punched from very different numerical punches, and are therefore from different obverse dies.
With the small total mintage of 1895 Proof Morgans, I assume that only 1 die pair was used. If so, and if the PCGS certified Heritage coin is genuine (reasonable assumption), then the subject coin is likely not a genuine 1895 Proof Morgan.
This is a very enlightening and educational thread!!
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
The credit goes back in the thread to Andy Lustig, Russ and others who looked at the pics before I did. All I did was take Andy's sourced image, place them closer together and crop in on the dates.
I would defer to BigE's knowledge about date/numeral placement. What strikes me about the comparitive photos are that, absent the Heritage example we can be reasonably sure of as a proof, the (likely) unc example might appear to be a proof if you're zooming in on well-struck denticles, etc.
It doesn't help that in other instances, proofs made sometimes had a frosty, business strike luster (I believe Bowers wrote about late date Seated Quarters that could appear this way) and, on occasion, a proof die might later be used for business strikes (not an issue with the '95-P Morgan.)
But in looking at these two particular coin images, what strikes me most is not the date placement (which to me seems relatively the same) so much as the "fatness" of the (presumably) business strike coin's numerals in the date - compared to the highly polished die surface of the proof, which wears away and smooths out the initial surface on the die - leaving a (very slightly) shallower date, with thinner and sharper-appearing numerals overall. I believe this effect is also somewhat evident on the proof's denticles, and also on E Pluribus Unum.
Not the same as a proof, but similar in the nature of the polishing, that's what not only did away with the foreleg on the 3-legged '37-D, but also contributes to a thinner appearing motto and hind leg on the reverse of that coin.
So it's important to know exact die characteristics - I would say I'd want to know, if i were to buy a '95, exactly which known die pairs it matches up with. But more than that consideration, I'm looking at the overall appearance of these two images, per my thoughts above. It would be very cool to see a "known" proof '95, well-worn (VF or so?) with little remaining luster, but still have a good look as to the thickness of those numerals in the date...
For the record, My post (now removed) had nothing to do with the mintmark, or lack thereof. I only pointed out that the feathers on the eagle's left wing were not from a proof strike (among other features), and this was not from wear. Whether the coin is a "S" , "O" , or the Peking Mint (cast copy), I left it for others to decide. This was a very interesting photo and I thank the original poster of the thread and provocative photo.
<< <i>Presumably, Proofs can be told apart from potential circulation strikes by the number of edge "reeds" (the raised "bumps" on the edge of the coin). Proofs will have 179 "reeds", whereas circulation strikes will have some other number. >>
If I can throw my 2 cents in these pics are in relief and show no raised portion of coin whare " s " is said to exist. I added a pic of an Ike for comparison.
<< <i>I think we need a third example for confirmation. God forbid if they are all different-------------------BigE >>
Hi, this is as many NGC & PCGS slabbed 1895 Proofs as I could find for further comparison of numeral font, placement etc. The grades are all over the place from PR50 to PR66 - I hope they help in making a determination one way or the other. I am open to being right or wrong - either way I'll learn something I'm no expert - but all but 1 look to be the same "5" to me - same with the "holes" in numerals like the 9 - diamond shaped in only the first image. Should the numerals and denticles be so fat and so different? CC's photograph is on top:
top image - CC's photograph of the 95 in question; bottom NGC PR Heritage image posted by MrEureka 1895 NGC PR63 DLRC 1895 NGC PR64 DLRC 1895 NGC PR50 Heritage 1895 NGC PR66 Heritage 1895 NGC PR66 DLRC 1895 PR66 PCGS Bowers
Best and Happy Thanksgiving ALL, Billy
PS - Apologies to anyone upset by the nature of my comments - I was actually trying to share information. CD - I never meant to slam your formidable photography skills - if you believe I did that is more than enough to warrant my sincere apologies.
Nice detective work Billy! Really starting to look like the coin in question is what it appears to be- an altered mint mark coin. CD should be happy that he can help alert his client about this coins authenticity and hopefully be able to return the coin if it's not real. CD said it was not in a PCGS holder so I hope for the owners sake it is in an NGC slab and not one of those third tier slabs where getting reimbursed is out of the question. Too bad someone got took but with thanks to Billy's keen eye maybe they can still come out okay. mike
<< <i>Really starting to look like the coin in question is what it appears to be- an altered mint mark coin. >>
Really!!I can't see where anyone can come to that conclusion. The pic of CD's coin has been so screwed up and distorted that no one could possibly come to any conclusion at all! I mean, hell, look at the top picture! Look at all the distortion!!!...
Sorry Ken, but from all the evidence posed I have come to that conclusion- unless someone can find another obverse from a genuine proof 95 that matches the one in question I stand by my thoughts- you have a right to your thoughts also and I respect that. mike
MagicBilly: You deserve a lot of credit for doing all of that 1895 Morgan research work and for your excellent digital images which give us a very clear comparison of the different dates on NGC and PCGS certified 1895 Morgans which I will assume are genuine.
The numerals in the date of the subject coin do not match the other coins, which all seem to have consistently narrower punched numerals. Without knowing which TPGS certified the subject coin, I will draw my own conclusion (my opinion) that the subject coin is not a genuine 1895 Proof Morgan.
As I stated in one of my earlier posts in this thread: The strike, luster and overall appearance of the coin do not look (to me) like a typical proof Morgan, but seem to me to be more like that of either a Philadephia Mint or a New Orleans "O" Mint business strike Morgan, rather than that of a Philadephia minted Proof Morgan.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
<< <i>That is not an altered mintmark coin. The numerals on all the mintmarks match the numerals on the Philly proof. >>
So we are thinking this coin is counterfiet altogether? Very thought provoking. Is it possible for any of the VAM guy's to attribute each side? or is it an impossible task? mike
the last coin in the grouping matches the date of the 95 in question pretty well. The spacing with the denticles and the distance from the denticles is a pretty good match. Can anyone do an overlay?
<< <i>the last coin in the grouping matches the date of the 95 in question pretty well. The spacing with the denticles and the distance from the denticles is a pretty good match. Can anyone do an overlay? >>
I don't even think it looks close but if someone can do an overlay that would be great. mike
Within a couple of minutes of the original post, Andy responded with apparent contempt for the coin ... from the original picture. The original picture shows a date style completely unlike any of the images I have seen in the Heritage Auction archives.
I see no 'agenda' here. I see a coin with a questionable characteristic posted to the forum for discussion. In fact, we don't even know for sure the coin is certified as genuine.
<< <i>Ken, sorry but what do you mean by an agenda? mike >>
Mike, let me be more specific! I'm referring to Magicbilly! He has to put a twist to everything that gets posted on this forum! And, it gets very tiring to people after a while! Just go back and read different posts where he has posted and you will see what I mean! This whole thing could have probably been resolved with some really meaningful dialogue instead of the way he first responded to it. He has apologized to us for the way he handled it and that is a great thing! However, I'll say what I tell my grandkids when they constantly say "I'm sorry!" If you would have done it right the first time with a little thought, then you wouldn't have to be saying "Sorry!"
<< <i>the last coin in the grouping matches the date of the 95 in question pretty well. The spacing with the denticles and the distance from the denticles is a pretty good match. Can anyone do an overlay? >>
I don't even think it looks close but if someone can do an overlay that would be great. mike >>
Hi, I don't think they look quite so similar either - just the negative spaces alone in the numerals appear different - such as the opening in the top of the 9 - that looks pretty different. The numerals on the questioned coin appear "fat and rounded" to me(commented on by others). Also, what about the appearance of the denticles (commented on by others), strike(commenetd on my others), lack of any Proof surfaces apparently even in protected areas(commented on by others)..I don't know - if I posted that 95 in here with no slab and claimed it was a Proof I would expect to be roubdly laughed out of town. IMHO it appears to waddle, quack and in my eyes may take flight. What is the reason many think this is a Proof? I am not seeing it, like so many others. Why does it not resemble any Circ Proof shown? Everyone "hates" a lot of the coins I post and is quite verbal saying so (my ugly "coffee spilled" 41 PR 5c, my "AT" (not) PR Barber/Benson 10c etc..). I never went nuts or even got mad when people responded with comment after comment like that, but then I am looking for constructive criticism and expect a variety of opinions, which is valuable. We now know that 95 is not slabbed by PCGS - from the posts I read that CC will apparently not divulge who did grade it for that reason so I posted these images that this might be concluded one way or another based on the numerals etc. that were questioned last night.
Happy Thanksgiving, Billy
PS - I have NO AGENDA, especially today - as TDN noted the very first post about this coin was "yeah, right." I was also not the first to see the "S" or whatever you wish to call it (or not) I did not notice the numerals/denticles first either - someone else posted about that. Nor did I claim a single die pair was used - that was someone else too Actually, every point I make was made previously by others if you read the original thread which I will not bother linking to yet again. Several have stated they saw no direct personal attack on CD by me (because there was none, any more than I slammed his photograpghy - I am not sure I ever even mentioned it - except to say his skills were formidable). Speaking for myself, I find this thread much more interesting than the "Why are AT coins like breast implants" or whatever that was.
I didn't overlay them because it didn't help much. they are pretty dang close. here are the two pics of same size and rotation. I sharpened CD image to try to see if I could see it on the overlay and didn't want to go back and do all of the work again.
Here's one with the original coin's date outlined in red and the last picture of the set of proofs overlayed on it. With the differences in size, slight angle, and lighting between the two pics, it's pretty tough to get it exact. I don't think it proves anything one way or the other...
Hi, good work why are the holes in the 8 and 9 on the CC photo-coin not "round" - unlike all other examples including the PCGS example? They clearly appear diamond shapped or oblong. The "waist" of the 8 looks tighter to me than on the examples I provided. As others noted, the 5 looks fatter and the numerals appear to lack the square sharpness of a Proof. I hope we will can find out one way or the other.
Some of you people are totally unbelievable! You can't tell anything from billy's butchered up photoshopped version of CC's original picture!
You all could get good jobs finding great coins for your fellow forum members on ebay with your abilities to discern good from bad with sheety pictures!
Hi, I never posted any large image of the date on CC's photograph or even made mention the date. That was all done while I was sleeping last nite - that was pointed out and shown other people, except where I re-posted the combo-comparison image which was also made and posted by someone else first from the original CC image I imagine. Are you saying those people as well as myself have altered these images with regard to the date? Why do you think the 6 images are I provided for comparison are even real?
Andy's response based on the original posted picture matches my internal response after comparing the original picture to the Heritage auction archives.
The numerals in the date are wrong. In my experience with trade dollars, this is one tell for fakes from the Orient.
I have based my opinion on the original pictures posted by CC.... as did Andy. Why do you keep harping on the 'photoshop' images when the original images are definitive as well?
Billy, you must be miserabbly forgetful! Look at the very first post to this thread, made by you, and tell me what you see! Or, did someone else post that while you slept???
But this was not the first thread on the subject. The matter started in another thread and was further illustrated in this thread.
Do you not agree that the date numerals in CC's first post are different than the date numerals illustrated in other 1895 dollars? Andy picked it up right away ... it's obvious when you look. The numerals are too fat, the openings inside the numerals too angular.
It's a compliment to CC's photography skills that the differences are obvious.
Ken, I just said, LARGE photo - obviously I posted the date in my first post - I posted the whole darn coin - CC'c photograph. I did not "zero" in it or even mention the date - I was looking at the reverse the whole time and said so. I wish I did think to look at the date though. Like most everything else I mentioned, I was not the first
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
I think they are obviously different.
Russ, NCNE
Edited to add an 1895-O (bottom).
Russ, NCNE
Cameron Kiefer
<< <i>but why can't we find out who slabbed it? >>
Maybe he would have told us if he had been asked to in a nice manner! Instead, we had a resident dissenter put up some more of his babbling and rambling ideas!
Your side-by-side date image comparison of the two coins irrefutably illustrates that those two dates were punched from very different numerical punches, and are therefore from different obverse dies.
With the small total mintage of 1895 Proof Morgans, I assume that only 1 die pair was used. If so, and if the PCGS certified Heritage coin is genuine (reasonable assumption), then the subject coin is likely not a genuine 1895 Proof Morgan.
This is a very enlightening and educational thread!!
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
<< <i>For what it is worth, proofs did come this year with 3 different date positions >>
So then, looking at these photos could be as useful as looking at the floor!!!!..
the 5 above is a different shape on each one. placement does not mean much to me in this thread.
good to know there were 3 different placements of the 5, did not know that.
It doesn't help that in other instances, proofs made sometimes had a frosty, business strike luster (I believe Bowers wrote about late date Seated Quarters that could appear this way) and, on occasion, a proof die might later be used for business strikes (not an issue with the '95-P Morgan.)
But in looking at these two particular coin images, what strikes me most is not the date placement (which to me seems relatively the same) so much as the "fatness" of the (presumably) business strike coin's numerals in the date - compared to the highly polished die surface of the proof, which wears away and smooths out the initial surface on the die - leaving a (very slightly) shallower date, with thinner and sharper-appearing numerals overall. I believe this effect is also somewhat evident on the proof's denticles, and also on E Pluribus Unum.
Not the same as a proof, but similar in the nature of the polishing, that's what not only did away with the foreleg on the 3-legged '37-D, but also contributes to a thinner appearing motto and hind leg on the reverse of that coin.
So it's important to know exact die characteristics - I would say I'd want to know, if i were to buy a '95, exactly which known die pairs it matches up with. But more than that consideration, I'm looking at the overall appearance of these two images, per my thoughts above. It would be very cool to see a "known" proof '95, well-worn (VF or so?) with little remaining luster, but still have a good look as to the thickness of those numerals in the date...
Another picture!
Yet another picture!
........coppercoins is innocent !
Yes, the VAM book reports 3 different varities.
Free Trial
So when do we get to the part where you threaten a lawsuit?
<< <i>Presumably, Proofs can be told apart from potential circulation strikes by the number of edge "reeds" (the raised "bumps" on the edge of the coin). Proofs will have 179 "reeds", whereas circulation strikes will have some other number. >>
<< <i>I think we need a third example for confirmation. God forbid if they are all different
Hi,
this is as many NGC & PCGS slabbed 1895 Proofs as I could find for further comparison of numeral font, placement etc. The grades are all over the place from PR50 to PR66 - I hope they help in making a determination one way or the other. I am open to being right or wrong - either way I'll learn something
top image - CC's photograph of the 95 in question; bottom NGC PR Heritage image posted by MrEureka
1895 NGC PR63 DLRC
1895 NGC PR64 DLRC
1895 NGC PR50 Heritage
1895 NGC PR66 Heritage
1895 NGC PR66 DLRC
1895 PR66 PCGS Bowers
Best and Happy Thanksgiving ALL,
Billy
PS - Apologies to anyone upset by the nature of my comments - I was actually trying to share information. CD - I never meant to slam your formidable photography skills - if you believe I did that is more than enough to warrant my sincere apologies.
<< <i>Really starting to look like the coin in question is what it appears to be- an altered mint mark coin. >>
Really!!I can't see where anyone can come to that conclusion. The pic of CD's coin has been so screwed up and distorted that no one could possibly come to any conclusion at all! I mean, hell, look at the top picture! Look at all the distortion!!!...
<< <i>I know it is not his coin and he just photgraphed it, but why can't we find out who slabbed it?
Cameron Kiefer >>
I'll bet my lunch money it's NOT PCGS, NGC, or ANACS.
The numerals in the date of the subject coin do not match the other coins, which all seem to have consistently narrower punched numerals. Without knowing which TPGS certified the subject coin, I will draw my own conclusion (my opinion) that the subject coin is not a genuine 1895 Proof Morgan.
As I stated in one of my earlier posts in this thread: The strike, luster and overall appearance of the coin do not look (to me) like a typical proof Morgan, but seem to me to be more like that of either a Philadephia Mint or a New Orleans "O" Mint business strike Morgan, rather than that of a Philadephia minted Proof Morgan.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
<< <i>That is not an altered mintmark coin. The numerals on all the mintmarks match the numerals on the Philly proof. >>
So we are thinking this coin is counterfiet altogether? Very thought provoking. Is it possible for any of the VAM guy's to attribute each side? or is it an impossible task? mike
<< <i>the last coin in the grouping matches the date of the 95 in question pretty well. The spacing with the denticles and the distance from the denticles is a pretty good match. Can anyone do an overlay? >>
I don't even think it looks close but if someone can do an overlay that would be great. mike
JMO
Ken
<< <i>It doesn't look close because the original picture has been photoshopped to death and butchered by people with an agenda! >>
Ken, sorry but what do you mean by an agenda? mike
I see no 'agenda' here. I see a coin with a questionable characteristic posted to the forum for discussion. In fact, we don't even know for sure the coin is certified as genuine.
<< <i>Ken, sorry but what do you mean by an agenda? mike >>
Mike, let me be more specific! I'm referring to Magicbilly! He has to put a twist to everything that gets posted on this forum! And, it gets very tiring to people after a while!
Just go back and read different posts where he has posted and you will see what I mean!
This whole thing could have probably been resolved with some really meaningful dialogue instead of the way he first responded to it.
He has apologized to us for the way he handled it and that is a great thing!
However, I'll say what I tell my grandkids when they constantly say "I'm sorry!" If you would have done it right the first time with a little thought, then you wouldn't have to be saying "Sorry!"
Ken
<< <i>
<< <i>the last coin in the grouping matches the date of the 95 in question pretty well. The spacing with the denticles and the distance from the denticles is a pretty good match. Can anyone do an overlay? >>
I don't even think it looks close but if someone can do an overlay that would be great. mike
Hi,
I don't think they look quite so similar either - just the negative spaces alone in the numerals appear different - such as the opening in the top of the 9 - that looks pretty different. The numerals on the questioned coin appear "fat and rounded" to me(commented on by others). Also, what about the appearance of the denticles (commented on by others), strike(commenetd on my others), lack of any Proof surfaces apparently even in protected areas(commented on by others)..I don't know - if I posted that 95 in here with no slab and claimed it was a Proof I would expect to be roubdly laughed out of town. IMHO it appears to waddle, quack and in my eyes may take flight. What is the reason many think this is a Proof? I am not seeing it, like so many others. Why does it not resemble any Circ Proof shown?
Everyone "hates" a lot of the coins I post and is quite verbal saying so (my ugly "coffee spilled" 41 PR 5c, my "AT" (not) PR Barber/Benson 10c etc..). I never went nuts or even got mad when people responded with comment after comment like that, but then I am looking for constructive criticism and expect a variety of opinions, which is valuable.
We now know that 95 is not slabbed by PCGS - from the posts I read that CC will apparently not divulge who did grade it for that reason so I posted these images that this might be concluded one way or another based on the numerals etc. that were questioned last night.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Billy
PS - I have NO AGENDA, especially today
good work
Best,
Billy
You all could get good jobs finding great coins for your fellow forum members on ebay with your abilities to discern good from bad with sheety pictures!
I never posted any large image of the date on CC's photograph or even made mention the date. That was all done while I was sleeping last nite - that was pointed out and shown other people, except where I re-posted the combo-comparison image which was also made and posted by someone else first from the original CC image I imagine. Are you saying those people as well as myself have altered these images with regard to the date? Why do you think the 6 images are I provided for comparison are even real?
Best,
Billy
The numerals in the date are wrong. In my experience with trade dollars, this is one tell for fakes from the Orient.
I have based my opinion on the original pictures posted by CC.... as did Andy. Why do you keep harping on the 'photoshop' images when the original images are definitive as well?
Do you not agree that the date numerals in CC's first post are different than the date numerals illustrated in other 1895 dollars? Andy picked it up right away ... it's obvious when you look. The numerals are too fat, the openings inside the numerals too angular.
It's a compliment to CC's photography skills that the differences are obvious.
I just said, LARGE photo - obviously I posted the date in my first post - I posted the whole darn coin - CC'c photograph. I did not "zero" in it or even mention the date - I was looking at the reverse the whole time and said so. I wish I did think to look at the date though. Like most everything else I mentioned, I was not the first
Best,
Billy