I tried to scan throught the huge list of threads, but did not see anyone talk about the number of reeds. The 1895 Proof has 188 reeds, while the 1895-S has either 185 or 186. This difference in reeds is one of the primary ways to determine if an 1895-S has been altered in an attempt to pass it off as 1895 proof.
<< <i>The numerals on the questioned coin appear "fat and rounded" to me(commented on by others).
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, what about the appearance of the denticles (commented on by others)
<< <i>
<< <i> strike(commenetd on my others),
<< <i>
<< <i>lack of any Proof surfaces apparently even in protected areas(commented on by others)
<< <i>
<< <i>PS - I have NO AGENDA, especially today - as TDN noted the very first post about this coin was "yeah, right
<< <i>
<< <i> was also not the first to see the "S" or whatever you wish to call it (or not)
<< <i>
<< <i> did not notice the numerals/denticles first either - someone else posted about that
<< <i>
<< <i>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
<< <i>
<< <i>Like most everything else I mentioned, I was not the first
<< <i>
I don't know magikbilly, kinda sounds like my kids when they are trying to talk their way out of something they obviously did. At least have the guts to stand behind what you are doing and stop trying to hide behind anything you can find to hide behind. "Ignore that man hiding behind the curtain"
I STAND DIRECTLY BEHIND MY STATEMENTS. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS AN 1895 PROOF MORGAN DOLLAR! I think it "funny" that it may be for reasons I did not address or even find, but whatever. I stated that others pointed these things out because it was suggested I did something to the scans - yet people were questioning it in specific ways before I posted a word - that is a good defense IMHO against the theory I altered scans.
Ken, sorry but I don't see Billy doing anything wrong in this thread? I just reread the thread to see if I missed something. If anything it looks like Billy is the one that is under attack by a personel agenda- I think these things should be taken care of privately in PM's and not brought into a very educational thread. mike
<< <i>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! >>
Several copies of CC's original photo, and several un-photoshopped cropped versions of CC's photo (showing only the date) clearly show the numerals on the date are of a different shape (fatter) than the several close-ups of the dates on the genuine 1895s. That has been the focus of the latter portion of this thread, not the photoshopped pictures alleging the removed mintmark.
Please tell me how you know this? If you could, I would love to hear how you attributed it. I have tried to show information etc. - there has not been a tremendous lot of evidence given to support the idea it is a Proof. please share your information so we all can see it?
Thanks TDN for posting the original thread. My post was 9th not 7th with 2 agreeing it's real, 2 agreeing it's not. My question in seven pages of posts is NOT even mentioned "Is this coin EVEN certified????". AND--can anyone show (explain) a single 95 Proof with the utter lack of detail, I pointed out, on the left wing and elsewhere on a PCGS?ANACS?NGC? certified 1895 proof? LOOK AT THE WHOLE COIN!!!
I did. Im sorry but saying "it's an obvious Proof" 3 times in a row and stating you own Proof Morgans and thats it's your field doesn't quite do it for me. You also pointed out that another Morgan expert said so - but I think he has stated that comment was not meant to be taken seriously. I was hoping for something more concrete. Really NOT trying to be difficult here - just asked a question.
"saying it's an obvious Proof" 3 times in a row and stating you own Proof Morgans and thats it's your field doesn't quite do it for me.
I have nothing to prove to you Billy. You either know proof morgans - and can recognize them at a glance, or you don't. I would put you in the "don't" category.
You either know proof morgans - and can recognize them at a glance, or you don't.
I know trade dollars. I can recognize most of the fakes at a glance. However, there are fakes out there that are so good that you simply can't tell off an image. And I've seen one or two not so good fakes in third tier certified holders being sold on ebay.
Please educate me as to the diagnostics that show this is a genuine 1895 Morgan. The fact that the date looks nothing like the dates shown in the Heritage auction archives troubles me beyond the ability of your 'you either know them or you don't' philosophy to resolve my concern.
No one wants to be specific do they? Ok, I assume if you have the ANR Fog Run Cat., look at lot 1628 PR-64 1895. Just to get the ball rolling; examine the extreem crispness of the rim and width, examine the extreem detail of the wings as well as the definition of the hair over the ear, the wreath and especially the breast. Now look at any other page size MS photo, or a coin in hand, or another 18950 or S. page size in another catalog. It''s the detail of strike and crispness. It takes major wear to remove this, unless the coin struck through (unlikely). Last look and compare the #1628 ARN coin to the questioned 1895. I see a major difference overall---ignoring the date/MM concerns.
There's nothing to share. You've taken a resized photo and with some hokey analysis about the date have convinced yourself it's not a proof coin. I don't know a single TPG that would do that.
I truly don't care a bit what this darn coin is or isn't, and don't even follow the threads with date and MM disputes. Let me state it one last time. Of the tens of thousands of AU Morgans I have seen in hand, I have NEVER seen so much wear on the LEFT wing of the eagle to the point I can't see the feathers clearly, but see little or Zero wear on the RIGHT wing of the same coin. THEY DON"T WEAR IN THIS WAY. Look at the original picture!!! Maybe this is just a horrible picture, in which case all the arguments are meaningless. I'm almost ready to say this is the first known 1895 minted for circulation, or it's the last undetailed Proof ever struck from some tired dies. But, wear does not remove most of the fine detail from any Morgan Proof; at least not at the AU level.
MorganNut: Correct. And no, the original photo is 100% accurate in showing the wing. Finally, Morgan Proofs are struck multiple times just to impart that kind of detail you mentioned. Business strikes are only struck once.
You're on an interesting track though. Can you take it further?
Oh my gosh, somebody at least is looking at the whole coin too!!! Thank you. First, everything assumes the "two minute"photo (quoting the photographer) is accurate. Let's assume it is. Next assume that this is not the first Morgan with AU wear ( AND AU is even a photo-based assumption IMHO), where the eagle's left wing dramatically wears more than the right; when we know it is usually the converse pattern. That leaves a number of options. Two I have stated: the coin is a real proof but it is a very late die state (every die WAS used 2 or more times on each Proof) , and 2) unlikely, but its always assumed that there were no circulation strikes of the 12,880 reported. Is that necessarily so? Why couldn't the mint have just started to continue the 1895 issue, but have used just one strike, at least for a few coins. It's not as if all 95 proofs are as crisply detailed as the "super gems" we see in every sale. To speculate further, what if the was an early problem with the reverse die or press line-up, especially affecting the wing area? Who knows what die changes or substitutions might have been made? Or a simple third speculation is that some grease or something else struck through and 19th century quality contol wasn't top notch to say the least. And what everyone but the actual ower wants to know, is it a very, very clever counterfit? We don't know the weight or specific gravity, reed count and a host of just basic Coin Authentication Class 101 details from the photo. My position is that without close examination in hand, this could be anything from a very special piece to a copy and all this arguing is not going to tell us. It does serve to educate members on this issues characteristists and inform-that's good.
Hi All, I was looking at the reverses of the posts I gathered of certified '95's. I noticed some differences in the reverse of "the coin" and the certified 95's that might be of value.
1) on "the coin" the first "O" in "ONE" and the first "O" in "DOLLAR" appear to be different fonts. The first thin, the second fat. On the scans I collected they are all the same. The "O" in "DOLLAR" is noticably different than any other certified example.
2) the negative space in the "D" of "DOLLAR" is bigger than either "leg" of the actual letter on any of the certified '95's. On "the coin" it is very much the opposite. Other letters also exhibit similar shape/width differences, such as the "L"'s etc.
"the coin"
"the coin" as posted by photographer showing area of "MM"
Heritage NGC PRr50 1895
1895 NGC PR63 DLRC
1895 NGC PR64 DLRC
Best, Billy
I tried to use the clearest scans I collected. Please refer to the questioned coin as "the coin" from here on to respect the wishes of the original poster. And, if you should see little red x's - I didn't pull the images - blame the host they will be up soon - always are.
I wonder if the image of "the coin" was slightly compressed along the vertical axis. It would explain a lot. On the other hand, even if that's the case, "the coin" still looks like a business strike to me.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I wonder if the image of "the coin" was slightly compressed along the vertical axis. It would explain a lot. On the other hand, even if that's the case, "the coin" still looks like a business strike to me.
Well, Andy, when you get to the point in your career where you've seen a lot of proof Morgans, you'll know them when you see them...
Since this is already at the top...I would like to say...
LET THIS THREAD DIE! Even if it is proven by a TPG, people would still fight about this coin. Quite frankly, coppercoins posted a coin he thought we would like, and you guys turned it into a flaming fest. When I can do a quick scan and find at least 3 threads mocking him, then its gone a little too far...Shame on you!
Jack: For purely educational purposes, I for one would love to see a higher resolution photo of the subject 1895 Morgan Dollar, if you can get someone to host the larger file size images on a server, that you offered to share.
Based upon the apparent strike and luster from the following image, it is difficult for me to discern the subject coin as a genuine Proof 1895 Morgan Dollar.
If you have a higher resolution image which portrays the coin very differently, I would love to see it. Thanks for offering to share it with us!!
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"
Nice wire edge from 9 to 12:00 O'clock wouldn't you say?
Possibly. It's tough to say from the image. But you sometimes see rims like that on business strikes, so it proves nothing. I think we're at an impasse unless someone can attribute the coin by VAM or until we get the coin in our hands. For all it's worth, I'd start the VAM search with the 85-P's...
edited to say that the rim reminds me of some 96-P's...for some reason
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I quit. It's obvious to me this will prove to be the only known business strike 1895-P and Legend Coin will soon be paying over 6 figures for it's placement in a private collection!!!!
Comments
Here is the original thread... with the original picture. With Andy's original response. yeah, right.
Everyone have a nice rest-of-the-day!
Ken
Besides, the numerals in the date don't match the O or S mint date's numerals either....
<< <i>Someone mentioned it - but what good does it do? We can't count the reeds off the image, nor can CC count them if the coin is certified.
Besides, the numerals in the date don't match the O or S mint date's numerals either....
>>
What good does it do? Almost every company that certifies that coin will count the threads.
So?
It's not a 'removed mintmark' coin. The date numerals don't match the O and S mint numerals either.
<< <i>The numerals on the questioned coin appear "fat and rounded" to me(commented on by others).
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, what about the appearance of the denticles (commented on by others)
<< <i>
<< <i> strike(commenetd on my others),
<< <i>
<< <i>lack of any Proof surfaces apparently even in protected areas(commented on by others)
<< <i>
<< <i>PS - I have NO AGENDA, especially today - as TDN noted the very first post about this coin was "yeah, right
<< <i>
<< <i> was also not the first to see the "S" or whatever you wish to call it (or not)
<< <i>
<< <i> did not notice the numerals/denticles first either - someone else posted about that
<< <i>
<< <i>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
<< <i>
<< <i>Like most everything else I mentioned, I was not the first
<< <i>
I don't know magikbilly, kinda sounds like my kids when they are trying to talk their way out of something they obviously did. At least have the guts to stand behind what you are doing and stop trying to hide behind anything you can find to hide behind. "Ignore that man hiding behind the curtain"
I STAND DIRECTLY BEHIND MY STATEMENTS. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS AN 1895 PROOF MORGAN DOLLAR! I think it "funny" that it may be for reasons I did not address or even find, but whatever. I stated that others pointed these things out because it was suggested I did something to the scans - yet people were questioning it in specific ways before I posted a word - that is a good defense IMHO against the theory I altered scans.
Billy
<< <i>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!
Several copies of CC's original photo, and several un-photoshopped cropped versions of CC's photo (showing only the date) clearly show the numerals on the date are of a different shape (fatter) than the several close-ups of the dates on the genuine 1895s. That has been the focus of the latter portion of this thread, not the photoshopped pictures alleging the removed mintmark.
And you're still clueless. It's a proof.
Free Trial
Please tell me how you know this? If you could, I would love to hear how you attributed it. I have tried to show information etc. - there has not been a tremendous lot of evidence given to support the idea it is a Proof. please share your information so we all can see it?
Best,
Billy
Billy, we've had this discussion via PM. I suggest you refer to it.
Free Trial
I did. Im sorry but saying "it's an obvious Proof" 3 times in a row and stating you own Proof Morgans and thats it's your field doesn't quite do it for me. You also pointed out that another Morgan expert said so - but I think he has stated that comment was not meant to be taken seriously. I was hoping for something more concrete. Really NOT trying to be difficult here - just asked a question.
Thanks,
Billy
I have nothing to prove to you Billy. You either know proof morgans - and can recognize them at a glance, or you don't. I would put you in the "don't" category.
Free Trial
thats fine.
Thank you,
Billy
I know trade dollars. I can recognize most of the fakes at a glance. However, there are fakes out there that are so good that you simply can't tell off an image. And I've seen one or two not so good fakes in third tier certified holders being sold on ebay.
Please educate me as to the diagnostics that show this is a genuine 1895 Morgan. The fact that the date looks nothing like the dates shown in the Heritage auction archives troubles me beyond the ability of your 'you either know them or you don't' philosophy to resolve my concern.
Nope. I'm having too much fun watching everyone throw themselves into a tizzy.
Free Trial
<< <i>Nope. I'm having too much fun watching everyone throw themselves into a tizzy. >>
Gee, that's helpful. Thanks for sharing.
Well of course. It's a circulated proof, as I said in my first post on this.
Free Trial
There's nothing to share. You've taken a resized photo and with some hokey analysis about the date have convinced yourself it's not a proof coin. I don't know a single TPG that would do that.
Free Trial
You're on an interesting track though. Can you take it further?
Free Trial
The 8 is not the correct 'shape' for the 1895
The 9 is also a little funny looking
The 5 is also too closed
I was looking at the reverses of the posts I gathered of certified '95's. I noticed some differences in the reverse of "the coin" and the certified 95's that might be of value.
1) on "the coin" the first "O" in "ONE" and the first "O" in "DOLLAR" appear to be different fonts. The first thin, the second fat. On the scans I collected they are all the same. The "O" in "DOLLAR" is noticably different than any other certified example.
2) the negative space in the "D" of "DOLLAR" is bigger than either "leg" of the actual letter on any of the certified '95's. On "the coin" it is very much the opposite. Other letters also exhibit similar shape/width differences, such as the "L"'s etc.
"the coin"
"the coin" as posted by photographer showing area of "MM"
Heritage NGC PRr50 1895
1895 NGC PR63 DLRC
1895 NGC PR64 DLRC
Best,
Billy
I tried to use the clearest scans I collected. Please refer to the questioned coin as "the coin" from here on to respect the wishes of the original poster.
And, if you should see little red x's - I didn't pull the images - blame the host
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Well, Andy, when you get to the point in your career where you've seen a lot of proof Morgans, you'll know them when you see them...
Joe.
Funny!
But true...especially if you've seen the larger, original, unretouched photos!
Think I should send them to Andy?
Free Trial
Free Trial
LET THIS THREAD DIE! Even if it is proven by a TPG, people would still fight about this coin. Quite frankly, coppercoins posted a coin he thought we would like, and you guys turned it into a flaming fest. When I can do a quick scan and find at least 3 threads mocking him, then its gone a little too far...Shame on you!
">"http://www.cashcrate.com/5663377"
It's not fonts, it's strike. Look at 'PLURIBUS' even in the small photo you have. Does that sucker look double struck?
Free Trial
Based upon the apparent strike and luster from the following image, it is difficult for me to discern the subject coin as a genuine Proof 1895 Morgan Dollar.
If you have a higher resolution image which portrays the coin very differently, I would love to see it. Thanks for offering to share it with us!!
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 am not just seeing it either. If you have better photographs please post them!
Best,
Billy
<< <i>This is the first 100+ post flame thread in which a COIN is being flamed, instead of a person. >>
Might just be a first for the U.S. coin forum.
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
I see what you mean, but it looks more like shadows and dirt to me.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Nice wire edge from 9 to 12:00 O'clock wouldn't you say?
Free Trial
Possibly. It's tough to say from the image. But you sometimes see rims like that on business strikes, so it proves nothing. I think we're at an impasse unless someone can attribute the coin by VAM or until we get the coin in our hands. For all it's worth, I'd start the VAM search with the 85-P's...
edited to say that the rim reminds me of some 96-P's...for some reason
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Hmmmm. Interesting style on the 8 of this 1885-P:
As opposed to the style on the 1895-P:
And the coin in question: