UPDATED: AT or NT? - Wayne Miller thought this was *NT*

lsica

DickyBetz

NT

Steve27

AT (you never see 100% coverage on both sides of an NT coin)

kryptonitecomics

100% AT....and I don't usually state that from an image..........If that image is greatly enhanced....then maybe a slim shot

p8nt

AT. Thats way too red.

Windycity

at

TOMCATTOM

LOOKS AT TO ME. GET THAT SLABBED BY PGCS AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF MONEY!

BAJJERFAN

I think AT or AT&T but its hard to know how accurate those pix are.

curly

It looks AT on my 'puter.

robertpr

very AT

SUPERCARCOINS

at

LanLord

When I looked at the coin first, I thought AT - no doubt.

I saw dicky go out on a limb and say NT - I have some doubt, what does he see!

Everyone else says AT (I feel vindicated).

But I wonder if this is a mixed coin. I see some tone on this coin that looks okay to me, and other tone that looks all wrong.

I see the area around stars that look clean and some of the "canvas marks".

Is it possible, someone took a toned coin and added tone to it?

Coin Finder

I beleive it is AT but started out as NT

Tbig

Russ

I'm not sure I'd reject this one out-of-hand as AT. It may very well be, but this is a pretty crappy image from which to judge.

Russ, NCNE

airplanenut

I agree with Russ. The image is terrible, and the look of the coin is really unknown. That said, bag toned coins can be 100% toned--common? No, but they do occur. That said, I've never seen a textile pattern that well AT'd... I want a better picture.

Hobbyist

UT

lsica

OK.. "AT" people. Tell me why you think so. The colors? Anything else stick out?

Coin Finder

The dark colors lay on the surface so I feel i could just wipe them off with a cloth. The yellow colors look more real, more a part of the coins surface.

Tbig

Prethen

AT
AT
AT
AT

All day long. The colors look way wrong and unnatural for the coin. The progressions are off and Steve was dead-on correct. You won't normally, if ever, see a Morgan toned like this on both sides.

I wouldn't touch that coin for anything much above melt.

DickyBetz

Its funny that all of you are saying AT because this is the same coin that is in Wayne Millers book. Is it not?

DickyBetz

Wouldnt it not have been included in the book if it was in fact AT?

lsica

Page 46 from Wayne Miller's Morgan and Peace Dollar Textbook, he called this obverse and reverse "the most gorgeous toned dollars this author has ever seen"

BigMoose

Guys, this coin is a 100% NT bag toned Morgan Dollar that I believe is a Plate Coin in Wayne Miller's Morgan Dollar Textbook which was published around 1975.

DickyBetz

<< <i>Page 46 from Wayne Miller's Morgan and Peace Dollar Textbook, he called this obverse and reverse "the most gorgeous toned dollars this author has ever seen" >>



Sorry for spilling the beans lsica. I couldnt resist.

Russ

Just goes to show how difficult it can sometimes be to judge a coin by an image.

Russ, NCNE

lsica

<< <i>Sorry for spilling the beans lsica. I couldnt resist >>



No problem, you beat me doing it myself by a minute ;-)

Hobbyist

I will stick with my UT. The picture makes it look Ugly with a capital U.

lablover

<< <i>AT (you never see 100% coverage on both sides of an NT coin) >>



Say what?

dragon

This thread is 100% proof positive on just how uninformed most people are when it comes to toned coins and the subject of AT vs. NT.


For one thing, those pics are of two different coins, an 1882-S obverse and an 1883-O reverse. Secondly, they are both spectacular 100% no question natural bag toned coins without question. Thirdly, most of the criteria most uninformed people use to make their determinations are not reliable nor even educated guesses.

BAJJERFAN

Here is a NT coin toned on both sides. This one came from Mark Feld.
The subject coin could well be NT, but it would be nice to see a more accurate pic. It is awful heavy on the reds. It could also be a NT which has been enhanced.

lsica

OK, now that I've had my Sunday giggle, I'll have to be honest. If I didn't know where it came from, I'd be "afraid" of this coin, too. (actually, I could't afford it, so my fear really isn't an issue here). But since we know it IS NT (yeah, I know it's 2 coins, but my point is such a piece IS possible), what about it should at least make us question a knee-jerk AT reaction and ask for a closer look (or in this case a better picture)?

Coin Finder

Dragon, point taken.

Thanks

Tbig

Prethen

<< <i>Here is a NT coin toned on both sides. This one came from Mark Feld.
The subject coin could well be NT, but it would be nice to see a more accurate pic. It is awful heavy on the reds. It could also be a NT which has been enhanced.

>>



This coin is a LOT more subtly toned and more attractive and more "realistically" toned than the above one. The one above "might" be NT, but it's definitely not a no-brainer NT...hence the real problem. And, yes, the services frequently encapsulate AT coins as if they were NT. There was a recent thread on these forums about this exact topic.

Russ

<< <i>The one above "might" be NT, but it's definitely not a no-brainer NT...hence the real problem. >>



Yet, just a while ago it WAS a no brainer AT.



<< <i>AT
AT
AT
AT

All day long. >>





Russ, NCNE

lsica

<< <i>Yet, just a while ago it WAS a no brainer AT. >>



I think he's saying that the Mark Feld coin was NOT a "no-brainer NT"

Deadhorse

I Immediatly thought NT. The textile toning was the give away for me.

Many NT coins are fully toned on both sides. I've got a 79 Morgan with endroll toning over a nice rainbow on the obverse and rainbow textile on the reverse.

It's in a PCGS 65 slab as well. It's NT all day long and I think this one is as well.

WTCG

Looks like natural toning to me although you can't say for sure looking at a picture.

messydesk

<< <i>AT (you never see 100% coverage on both sides of an NT coin) >>


It's two different coins.

clw54

I confess that I don't know if it's AT or NT.

tmot99

Excuse my ignorance...who's Wayne Miller?

And why just because this is in his book, it HAS to be NT?

Personally, I could care less if this is NT or AT. I don't like the look of the coin. I personally don't like the color of the toning nor the pattern.

CarlWohlforth

I didn't catch it was two different coins. I liked each side as a bag toned coin, but haven't seen one coins with two sides like that.

The other, 1904 Coin looks album toned. After seeing so many dipped then retoned coins it doesn't look all that natural to me either. I like the looks of all three coins posted here, but woudn't pay a huge premium for any of them. Well I might if the first coin really was one coin and toned on both sides.

bestclser1

NT,and the images suck.

Hadleydog

Looks NT to me, just the images are oversaturated.
Never seen textile on an AT coin.

tradedollarnut

Never seen textile on an AT coin.

I have.

dragon

<< <i>Looks NT to me, just the images are oversaturated.
Never seen textile on an AT coin. >>




Actually I think a dealer here on the forum had an expensive raw AT'd textile dollar for sale on Ebay, bad at first glance.

ibzman350

NT................based on the shadow affect



Herb

segoja

nt IF YOU THINK AT, THEN SEND THE COINS TO ME. I'LL TAKE EM OFF YOUR HANDS.

jom

The relief color on the lettering is different from what is in between the letters. That tells me it's a very good chance it is NT. That being said the photo isn't much help. You really need to see the coin in person.

jom

morgannut2

I find it very sad that so many posted on the first page state they're sure "it's" AT--actually "its" 2 coins. I have rarely known NT without seeing coins in hand. The image seems it has 100% of the diagnositics that indicate natural bag toning. That's ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Miller's coins came in sealed US MINT bags; plus the $2.25/ hour paid mint people were not known to spend time chemically ATing coins just for fun!!---This looks like another "my coins are original and white is best thread" (which might be true)-- but needlessly and indirectly gripes about collectors who buy, like, and know quality toned Morgans verses the "AT'd" Ebay cooked garbage. You just can't tell from a lousy computer image--GET IT!

Hadleydog

Never seen textile on an AT coin.
I have.

I've seen attempts, but they didn't look right. Could you post a pic?


Actually I think a dealer here on the forum had an expensive raw AT'd textile dollar for sale on Ebay, bad at first glance.

I have not seen that coin in hand, but anacs thought it was wrong too.
The textile on the coin in this thread is as natural as it gets, those color changes within the textile would be darn tough to duplicate.

TOMCATTOM

<< <i>I find it very sad that so many posted on the first page state they're sure "it's" AT--actually "its" 2 coins. I have rarely known NT without seeing coins in hand. The image seems it has 100% of the diagnositics that indicate natural bag toning. That's ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Miller's coins came in sealed US MINT bags; plus the $2.25/ hour paid mint people were not known to spend time chemically ATing coins just for fun!!---This looks like another "my coins are original and white is best thread" (which might be true)-- but needlessly and indirectly gripes about collectors who buy, like, and know quality toned Morgans verses the "AT'd" Ebay cooked garbage. You just can't tell from a lousy computer image--GET IT! >>

This means that from now on when someone says is it AT or NT we should not respond with what we think, as we are unable to have the coin in our hands. I have no idea who Wayne Miller is, pehaps I should read his book from 1975. I would still not buy that NT Morgan unless it was slabbed by PGCS or NGC and even then with it's unusually bright toning I would be concerned.