I'm concerned about what NGC has been holdering...

Myqqy · August 31, 2006 5:35AM

This toner looks very fake and very awful to me, and they holdered it? Am I being too picky, or are their standards slipping into the mud?

coinguy1 · August 31, 2006 5:39AM

I don't share your concern at all. It looks like a fairly unattractive, likely original MS64 coin. Nothing apparent in the images makes it look over-graded, either.

Myqqy · August 31, 2006 5:41AM

likely original MS64 coin

Wow- really? I'll defer to your greater knowledge- I guess it just looks like crap to me......

partagas · August 31, 2006 5:42AM

Myqqy, I agree that coin looks like crap from the sellers pics. But knowing the seller, they probably juiced the heck out of them to make the most dramatic effect.

It does look bad, but without it in hand how can we condem the coin.

coinguy1 · August 31, 2006 5:44AM

<< <i>likely original MS64 coin

Wow- really? I'll defer to your greater knowledge- I guess it just looks like crap to me......

>>

Remember, "original" doesn't necessarily equate with attractive/desirable.

That's part of the reason that so many "original" coins are turned into something else.

morgannut2 · August 31, 2006 5:44AM

As imaged, it seems to have the diagnostics of a typical unattractive NT bag-toned common date Morgan, & MS64 seems fine---

Myqqy · August 31, 2006 5:47AM

Ok, my bad- the images made it looked cooked and splotchy to me.... carry on.......

mcheath · August 31, 2006 6:23AM

it looks kind of odd to me as well, cooked and splotchy is a good way to describe it, but it could be the image. Either way it is fugly.

jdimmick · August 31, 2006 6:38AM

Ugly, but is naturally toned.

RYK · August 31, 2006 6:46AM

I posted a coin like that a while back and someone referred to it as "toilet water toning". It stuck with me and probably applies to this coin, as well.