POLL: Is coppercoins' 1895 photo that of a genuine proof Morgan?
ER
Posts: 7,345 ✭
No agenda here. Based on what you see so far from coppercoins' and Magikbilly's threads, just vote yes or no, or undecided.
Edited thread 's title to reflect that coppercoins owns the photo, and not the coin itself.
Edited thread 's title to reflect that coppercoins owns the photo, and not the coin itself.
0
Comments
<< <i>but the whole thing has been very educational >>
For me also.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>but the whole thing has been very educational >>
Sure has! Shows how great some people are at interpreting things from $hitty pics!
<< <i>Is somebody turning into the "comments police"??
Please step away from this thread. This is your final warning.
Cameron Kiefer
Got sample slabs?
<< <i>Wow...how did I miss all this?
You spend too much time racking up your post count over the OF.
<< <i>You spend too much time racking up your post count over the OF. >>
People actually do this???
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>In all fairness to Coppercoins, the coins is not his; only the photo is. I agree that it has been extremely educational. >>
Thanks, Robert. The coin is not CC 's. The photo is.
Happy Thanksgiving to you all,
Billy
Cameron Kiefer
<< <i>I tried to count opinions last nite though, and I did see a trend.
>>
Well you know what they say about opinions, they are kinda like buttholes.
Everybody has one and they ALL stink!!!
In the end the only opinion that matters is the person shelling out the cash.
42/92
<< <i>Why won't he just say what slab it is in? He had it in his hands.
Cameron Kiefer >>
Ever consider that the owner permitted him to show the pictures, but not release any other information about the coin? There are explanations... just because we may not know them, doesn't mean they're not there... And I think the way some people have gone about this, has cast CC in a very negative light... and many of us know that he is far from being a dishonest person...
42/92
What is the big deal??? Isn't there an expert who who can attribute this coin from the pics. It was my understanding that you don't even need to look for a removed MM to make the attribution. I'm no Morgan expert but the rims and denticulation (is that a real word??) look proofish to me???
Al
<< <i>
<< <i>Why won't he just say what slab it is in? He had it in his hands.
Cameron Kiefer >>
Ever consider that the owner permitted him to show the pictures, but not release any other information about the coin? There are explanations... just because we may not know them, doesn't mean they're not there... And I think the way some people have gone about this, has cast CC in a very negative light... and many of us know that he is far from being a dishonest person... >>
Hi,
CC has stated that, as the photographer, he has full rights to do whatever he wants with his own work, and he is absolutely correct. He said he will not reveal the slab because it is not PCGS. I have cast no "light" intentionally, and have apologized already to him and everyone else if it seemed that way - if he felt I was attacking him that is enough for me to apologize, and I have. Again, I was not the first to make any of the points raised! MrEureka made the very first response and said "yeah, right" immediately, based on nothing buy CC's original photograph - before anyone, including me, started talking about an "S", numerals or anything else. Before I even saw the thread.
Original Thread
Best,
Billy
42/92
<< <i>But Billy, how you went about it, I think was wrong, especially creating a thread, and especially with the title, casts him in a Negative light. It, IMHO, would have been smarter, for you to have kept it in the original thread... you brought more attention to it by making another thread and basically shouting out, "Hey Look At this Scandal!" when it really very easilly could have remained in the original discussion... >>
I never said anything like that, and have already apologized enough for misinterpretation/poor choice of words or whatever else you care to call it. I said "exposed" - which does NOT imply impropriety on CC's behalf until you get to the 6th definition in Websters, and that is not what I meant anyway - I would know. I changed that word when I realized it might be read wrong. I showed what I found, and it seems there was a lot more to be found anyway (like the date etc.) Yes, I wanted to bring attention to it. If I kept it in the original thread, CC might have changed the title and pulled the photo anyway (which was replaced as it was originally posted) as he did, and we might not even be talking about this subject - which has generated a lot of interest, responses and has been called educational as well. I just wish I actually had made at least 1 point first - but alas, I did not
Best,
Billy
I answered "no" just like anyone else should. Coppercoins doesn't have an 1895 Morgan. You people tend to forget that this was a job I did. I took the photo, just like I do for hundreds of other coins per year that aren't mine. I've handled patterns, gold, foreign, natinal bank notes, silver certificates, Colonials, Early quarters, halfs, and dollars, Morgan dollars, Peace dollars, foreign gold and silver........and I don't OWN a single piece of ANY of the aforementioned topics.
The photos logged for the coin in subject were 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288 and 1289. That means this year alone I have shot 1283 other photos of coins and notes that WERE NOT MINE. I don't invoice photos to myself, thus I don't number them. I have taken probably 500 photos of MY coins this year, probably a dozen of which I have posted here. They are easy to discern from those that are of coins that are NOT mine. ALL of the photos of MY coins are generally Lincoln cents, and ALL are under $50 coins.
I am a Lincoln cent specialist...that's just about all I do, other than a mild dabble in buffalo nickels. It would be VERY nice if people got off the horrendously erroneous and moronic kick that this coin you people are foaming about is MINE....
THE COIN IS NOT MINE. So MY 1895 is NOT genuine because I DON'T HAVE ONE!
Regards,
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
Hey, just threaten to sue everybody and whine to PCGS. You've already had one dry run . . . .
CD showed the pic, he thought it was cool.
Morgans aren't his specialty.
Then, people with no couth, no manners, and not wise to the ways of actually with members of society rather than just a computer screen decided to give short, negatively toned, blurbs.
If people really cared about the coin and had no intentions of haranguing (sic?) CD, then they could have worded things quite differently.
But, no....a person who or two has taken it quite the distance and claimed "education". Good for that. I am all for education. Doesn't need to be at another person's expense though, when that person has not tried anything shady or underhanded.
The other thread is one of the few in a long time that I have agreed with Ken but I definitely do agree.
Question.....why is it such a big deal to start all these threads about CD's pic of the morgan? You want to be able to tell a fake or altered MM 1895 then do it without using someone who tries to help educate others (he has with many lincoln threads) and being so negative about it especially when you know it isn't appreciated.
Hiding being "education" reasons while doing that is pretty cheesy!
Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i> Again, I was not the first to make any of the points raised! MrEureka made the very first response and said "yeah, right" immediately, based on nothing buy CC's original photograph - before anyone, including me, started talking about an "S", numerals or anything else. Before I even saw the thread. >>
So let me get this right magikbilly, being you were not the first to question the coin, then that opens the door for you to walk right on thru. Sort of like if someone else throws the first stone then BOMBS AWAY is fine for you ???
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I was saying that others saw what I did before I did because people were suggesting I did something to the scans. A good defense for this is to point out that the coin was questioned before I even read the thread.
I also don't think I was the one who first called this "educational". Lots of people have though, as lots have had the guts to state one way or another what they think publicly or in the poll - and others have not. I still am looking for reasons to think this looks like a Proof. I'll say it again - if I posted this coin with no slab claiming it was a Proof 1895 Morgan I'd be laughed out of town.
Best,
Billy
<< <i>It would be VERY nice if people got off the horrendously erroneous and moronic kick that this coin you people are foaming about is MINE....
Hey, just threaten to sue everybody and whine to PCGS. You've already had one dry run . . . . >>
this seems like a good spot for this gem:
"I don't need to lie about something like this. I cam slime around and come right up next to the truth and bump it and grind it, and trade places with exterior molecules of it without ever having the sun shine through that thin veneer of the truth that separates it from damnable lies.
Because.......I'm a lawyer."