Textile or Fingerprints...you decide !!!!

kryptonitecomics

Not my auction.....1899-0 Morgan Dollar PCGS MS65 -- GEM toned textile

FC57Coins

Los Linkos no workos de pain excruciato

LeeG

Sorry Kripto, link didn't work for me. Lee

Trooper

fixedlinky

Trooper

Hard to tell.....

Tom

klorineforbrains

That'd be a pretty big print . . .

Trooper

On the reverse I do see fingerprints......
Tom

FC57Coins

Those look like spots on the toning - not textile

Craton

My very un-profesional opinion = finger prints.

TUMUSS

Someone sneezed on that thing

Coinhusker1

Fingerprint. On the top of the reverse.

stman

<< <i>The reverse boasts some textile pattern (from the old mint bag). >>

BAJJERFAN

Prints on the reverse not sure wut to say on the obverse no textile on either side IMO.

K6AZ

I know this seller. I've emailed him a link to this thread. He's a good guy.

uofa1285

fugly, either way, imo.

TWQG

Tumuss

Coinhusker1

.Also, that looks more like target toning than bag toning.

kryptonitecomics

<< <i>I know this seller. I've emailed him a link to this thread. He's a good guy. >>



Never said he wasn't...nor did I list this as a rip off auction...just looking for opinions on the coin....I personally think there are multiple prints on the coin, but he provided two large scans front and back so nothing is being hidden from the buyer................................it's up to them if they feel it's actually textile.

K6AZ

I didn't say you did. I emailed him so he could respond. And no textile Morgan I've ever seen has come out with a scan.

kryptonitecomics

<< <i>I didn't say you did. I emailed him so he could respond. And no textile Morgan I've ever seen has come out with a scan. >>



Not sure I follow that last statement.....are you saying you can't represent textile patterns in a scan?

K6AZ

I'm saying that coin has a print. As far as it being textile, no way to be sure with just a scan. I've had several that did not show in scans.

stman

Textile.... scan

kryptonitecomics

Ok....just wanted to clarify....I agree that we can't make a 100% positive ID from that scan.

Just going off my gut instinct with my opinion that it's a print....might look different in hand.

stman

<< <i>I agree that we can't make a 100% positive ID from that scan. >>



Almost though.

kryptonitecomics

<< <i>

<< <i>I agree that we can't make a 100% positive ID from that scan. >>



Almost though. >>

Hedger

Looks like textile on the obverse and a print on the reverse.

CarlWohlforth

The reverse clearly is printed. The obverse spots could be lots of things and are not in a close enough waffle pattern like stman's image to allow me to jump out in support of a bag toning interpretation...

K6AZ

The reverse has a clear print. As far as the rest of it, it would appear to be an album toner. However, as I said, sometimes scans can be very deceiving.

As far as your scan stman, we discussed the scanner (we both have Epson photo scanners) which do about the best on coins as far as scanners go. I'm not sure what this seller uses.

K6AZ

As I said, Keith is one of the good guys. He read the comments here and added this to his auction:

********* FOLKS -- It has been brought to my attention that what I thought was TEXTILE lines on the back is probably just a huge-arse thumbprint. I agree with this diagnosis. I am sorry if I caused confusion, I try to be accurate and not overstep my level of knowledge, but I blew it on this one. SORRY!! If anyone wants to retract a bid I will work with you on that so it doesn't count against you, ie., by canceling this auction and relisting the item. My mistake. **********

--KEITH

Newmismatist

In order to have Textile toning, the coin needs to be "bag" toned - that coin does not appear to be "bag" toned and I would venture that it is NOT textiling on that coin. JMHO

K6AZ

And you've never seen a bag toned coin that was subsequently put in an album and then album toned?

stman

K6AZ, I'm glad to see the seller is straight up and changed the auction description. One of the reasons I didn't say much was to give the benefit of doubt that he might not know the difference between clearly a print and textile. Trust me, there are many folks that don't. But it's the sellers that DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE that bother me and try to pull one over on the less informed.

Newmismatist

<< <i>And you've never seen a bag toned coin that was subsequently put in an album and then album toned? >>



Eric - I said "that coin does not appear to be "bag" toned", and THAT's what I was referring to, nothing more, nothing less. If you think it's bag toned, you're certainly entiltled to your opinion; you've been wrong before, so it's nothing new.

K6AZ

What, wrong because yet another questionable coin got by NGC as market acceptable? Don't make me laugh, talk to FrattLaw about some "toned" Peace dollars that got in their holders.

My point on this particular coin was it had a print, appeared to have album toning, and the scan was not conclusive to tell if there was any textile on it. And I have seen bag toned coins that were released in the 50s that toned so heavily in albums for 30 years that you had to look close to spot the bag toning.

Newmismatist

<< <i>What, wrong because yet another questionable coin got by NGC as market acceptable? >>

In a word YES!

I've seen that coin in hand and up close - it is absolutely bag toned and genuine - But then you haven't held it in hand and don't know what you are talking about when it comes to that particular coin because you have not seen it in hand. So you opinions on that subject have no facts upon which they are based - you can render whatever opinions you wish to express, but without seeing that coin in hand they are worthless.



<< <i>talk to FrattLaw about some "toned" Peace dollars that got in their holders. >>



I have no clue what Fratlaw knows about toned Peace dollars that got into holders, but the implication is that Fratlaw AT's some coins and then got them graded - unfortunately, I know nothing about those coins IF that's what happened, and really could care less as getting qusetionable Peace dollars into a TPG holder is a whole lot different than this coin - like comparing apples and oranges. The coin that you are referencing is Fountainheadgold's coin, which is quite naturally toned and obvious to anyone who has even a minimum amount of knowledge regarding bag toned Morgans. Here's an image of Fountinheadgold's Bag toned Morgan that I took at FUN:



That coin is bag toned - both in the image AND IN HAND.



<< <i>My point on this particular coin was it had a print, appeared to have album toning, and the scan was not conclusive to tell if there was any textile on it. >>


The 1899-O coin that is discussed in this thread certainly has a print on the reverse that looks nothing like textiling, certainly appears to have lite album toning, the scan is not a particularly good - but does show a coin with peripheral toning on both sides which is a clear indication of album toning, but in my opinion there are no indications that it is a bag toned coin from that image - if you think there's bag toning or textiling on it, you're certainly entiltled to your opinion.



<< <i>And I have seen bag toned coins that were released in the 50s that toned so heavily in albums for 30 years that you had to look close to spot the bag toning. >>

That coin appears to have lite album toning - it's certainly not Heavy toning so whether SOME OTHER coins may have been bag toned and then become "heavily" album toned is quite irrelevent to the discussion about THIS coin. To be precise, virtually every album toned Morgan came from a bag as virtually every Morgan was shipped from the Mint in bags - whether any particular coin acquired any bag toning is a different issue and THIS particular coin has no indicia of bag toning - and that's all I said in my initial post. How this prompted a question about me having seen a "HEAVILY" album toned coin defies comprehension as this coin certainly is not heavily toned. If you have one available that you could post to enlighten the rest of us, why don't you post it so we can all see it? By the way - which of the coins that you reference "were released in the 50s"?

K6AZ

You know, I'm getting tired of arguing with you, and I see no point in it when you make a disingenuous move like putting "released in the 50s" in quotation marks. Why don't you buy a VAM book and read up on the release dates of the Treasury hoard, which started in the late 40s and was finished with the GSA sale of the Carson City coins of the early 70s.

stman

I changed my mind. They're "Toning Breaks." There, now it's settled. LMAO

Newmismatist

<< <i>I changed my mind. They're "Toning Breaks." There, now it's settled. LMAO >>



Sounds good to me - though a bit on the FUGLY side

morgannut2

Glad to hear that finally Numismatist and K6AZ both agree that this is an accurately represented Morgan dollar currently bid below potential fair market value, even with the PALM print (unless that was one of Paul Bunyon's big fingers!!).

Dog97

Glad to see everybody can recognize a fingerprint now that I been harping about them for the last 5 years.
The lines by the eagle's r wing are too close together to be cloth pattern, the lines under the eagle's tf are clearly prints, the smudge over there by "AMERICA" are clearly fingerprint related so add it all up and it all up and you don't have to be an FBI forensics expert to tell it's fingerprints.
Pretty much the same deal on obv above the date and behind the head.

fountainheadgold

Newmismatist

Hey Dog - we ALL agree! - (we've just been discussing just what it is that we all agree about - when everyone figures that out, then we'll know what we've agreed to) - but I agree with you too, them's a bunch of paw prints - maybe a thumb or two - and I agree that the Fibbies could ID the culprit and put him away for a long time - soon as they ID the mysterious killer in that notorious LA celebrity case I bet this is next on their hit list!

stman

I dunno, the dealers these days call them "Handling Marks." So we might just not know what we're talking about.
And of course they are "Unobtrusive." As they often say. But that's off topic I know.