GN, Fugly is not accurate IMO. That is a very nice toned Morgan. As to whether it deserves a star rating for high end eye appeal is debatable, but I might suggest that it is a high end 63 and because of the color it was awarded the star. NGC often uses the star as a partial grade bump IMO. It would not surprise me if that coin came back as a 64 without the star. Fugly? I certainly don't think so.
<< <i>These BC Morgans sure seem to play ownership musical chairs.
Russ, NCNE >>
Actually Russ, while there was one person who bought many of the best BC's who sold his coins due to financial issues, and another person who currently has many of the best who has sold some of his, just one level "below the best", BC coins (to make room for other coins), the absolute best BC's (roughly about 30 coins) currently are in very strong hands. They aren't going anywhere. Then you have the mid-range BC stuff which is still being absorbed into the market (roughly 300 coins, I just bought one at the Santa Clara show and will post it tomorrow). From what I've seen there is some shuffling going on among this group. Then you have the lower midrange coins, about 500, and the BC by NGC's grace only coins, roughly 550-600. Most of the BC musical chairs you see is going on in these last two categories. >>
Thanks for posting this SkyMan! So out of the 1400 coins, around 330 are in the 2 best categories and about 1050 - 1100 are in the 2 worst categories. These numbers say that 25% are the nice ones and 75% aren't. I would also agree with SkyMan that the nicest of the BC coins are in strong hands and basically aren't going anywhere. This is probably true with most of the hoards that come out - - the nicest coins bring the highest prices and go into the strongest hands. So I would expect that most of the BC coins being resold now are the lower-quality ones.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>Seriously Dizzy, what is the Battle Creek pedigree? There is so much unknown about the source not too many un-Pedigree Koolaid drinkers put much worth in it. For every two believers there is one non-believer. Therefore with this pedigree in particular it is much safer to buy the coin, not the pedigree. Now with Clapp, Eliasberg, or Duke's Creek we are talking different animals. >>
Battle Creek is not a "pedigree". It's a made up marketing gimmick.
Russ, NCNE There was a time in the not too distant past when the TPG's were credible enough to limit the assignment of a "pedigree" to coins that had been assembled in a collection of a dedicated numismatist who shared as much with the HOBBY as they received from the joy of owning TRULY rare coins. Ask yourself this: what could the name Battle Creek possibly have to do with the above?
Like I've consistently said, I don't ever give AT/NT opinions, much less do so and call the opinion a "fact" like a lot of folks do.
I've always said I hope these are NT. But the problem, from the beginning, has been that the imaging technique above causes lots of folks to be skeptical. The owners seem to stubbornly miss that point again and again, or resist it for some reason.
You have to admit, if they are as great as the guild says, they would look great held in the palm of your hand and imaged outdoors. You'll see what they really look like. If they don't look good under natural light, well,...
But no one takes the challenge. I'm beginning to think they don't want to show what these really look like, under unforgiving natural light. I would do it, and show the skeptics the glaring reality of their wonder.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Ever the one to stir the chit... like you say pharmer. These BC coins are so magnificent, that they don't need to be in a holder with a made up name on the tag. So what's keeping you(as in those who own BC slabs) from cracking yours out of their holders??????
<< <i>Ever the one to stir the chit... like you say pharmer. These BC coins are so magnificent, that they don't need to be in a holder with a made up name on the tag. So what's keeping you(as in those who own BC slabs) from cracking yours out of their holders?????? >>
For that matter, why not crack out every gorgeous coin of any series from their entombed slab???
<< <i>GN, Fugly is not accurate IMO. That is a very nice toned Morgan. As to whether it deserves a star rating for high end eye appeal is debatable, but I might suggest that it is a high end 63 and because of the color it was awarded the star. NGC often uses the star as a partial grade bump IMO. It would not surprise me if that coin came back as a 64 without the star. Fugly? I certainly don't think so. >>
Hmmm....
OK, I'll back off the "fugly." But I can find at least a dozen more attractively toned raw bag-toners at any 75+ table show. On a toning scale of one to ten, that coin is a two. I wouldn't pay a single cent of premium for the toning. Submitted raw, it will not *.
What I really think some of the BC crowd struggles with is that when I rip on the Island Coin style photos, I'M NOT RIPPING THE COINS. I have no doubt the coins look a million times BETTER than those ridiculous photos. I love some of the pictures Sunnywood has posted. Nor am I critical of the prices paid for them.
<< <i>Ever the one to stir the chit... like you say pharmer. These BC coins are so magnificent, that they don't need to be in a holder with a made up name on the tag. So what's keeping you(as in those who own BC slabs) from cracking yours out of their holders?????? >>
For that matter, why not crack out every gorgeous coin of any series from their entombed slab??? >>
Missed my point entirely. The point was: how could any serious numismatist compare the "pedigree?" of BC to the provenance(thanks, Frankcoins) of Norweb, Eliasberg, Pittman, etc. etc.????????
<< <i>Pedigree....The listing of a coin’s current owner plus all known previous owners (from NumisMedia) >>
Pedigree is a term for the bloodline of living things. For non living items, the term is
Provenance
The history of the ownership of an object, especially when documented or authenticated. Used of artworks, antiques, and books. The records or documents authenticating such an object or the history of its ownership.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>Ever the one to stir the chit... like you say pharmer. These BC coins are so magnificent, that they don't need to be in a holder with a made up name on the tag. So what's keeping you(as in those who own BC slabs) from cracking yours out of their holders?????? >>
For that matter, why not crack out every gorgeous coin of any series from their entombed slab??? >>
Missed my point entirely. The point was: how could any serious numismatist compare the "pedigree?" of BC to the pedigree of Norweb, Eliasberg, Pittman, etc. etc.???????? >>
Sorry for the point miss. Although I've stated before, comparing pedigrees against one another is apples and oranges. Battle Creek is a great pedigree, but of course it's not Norweb, nor is it Eliasberg. Trying to say any pedigrees are more famous or impressive than those two is just being silly IMO. But I'll state it again, I very much enjoy the BC pedigree of special Morgans.
What a thread...NTvsAT, pedigrees, name calling, and various other "discussions". I still have no idea what the story behind "Battle Creek Morgans" is, whether it be a pedigree or hype. All I know is that Battle Creek is where Cheerios Sacs are from.
Throwing barbs at Battle Creek coins and pictures seems to have become a "hobby" unto itself for some. Seems that most in this "hobby" haven't actually viewed the coins in hand. I don't collect Morgans and don't own any BC coins. But I have seen these coins in hand and will also tell you that they look everything like these pictures. If anything, the coins are a bit nicer than the pics show. I'm sure it's hard to photo these coins, they have so much varied and amazing color to them.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
There's a bunch of truth in a variety of the above statements. First, I would not call the BC's a collection. They were a hoard that resided in the Battle Creek area, hence the name. So, using the name BC "Collection" was indeed a marketing ploy. Having said that, they have now, because of the looks of the good ones (and the resulting staggering prices), acheived a certain notoriety and thus ipso facto a provenance.
Thank you Rich for your comments, but you were a bit harsh in including the lower mid-range with the grace of NGC BC coins. There IS a distinct split between them. Many of the lower mid-range are quite attractive and fully deserving of the star... they just don't deserve to be included with the upper grouping(s). As to that "fugly" coin that GN linkified, while I would not consider it fugly, neither would I consider it starworthy. By the above described scale I'd put it at the lowest end of the lower mid-range. The lowest grouping had at best micro-crescents and many coins that were ms60-62 grade.
As to people having issues with the images, these coins have now been in the marketplace for around a year and a half. If you went to either of the last two ANA's, or FUN, or several Baltimore or Long Beach shows you could easily have seen the coins in hand at Island Coins or Coingame2000's or Larry Shepherd's tables and made up your own mind as to the "Look" of the coin. As we all know, NO image is going to give a truly accurate representation of a coin, particularly toners, so you really do need to see them in hand.
Finally I'd like to congratulate FHG for his commonsense approach to this which was to post some pictures (peace to those of you who don't like the images ) since we as coin geeks should all like to look at pictures of coins. Here are some coins of mine. I don't have any coins from the low-end BC's, as I wouldn't waste my money on them.
The first coin is a MS64*DPL I got from the BC 5 auction. Basically the best 850 coins were sold in the first 4 BC auctions, and the scrapings were peddled in BC 5, e.g. the bottom 550-600 (well, technically some of these were dumped at later Superior auctions, but the majority were dumped at BC 5). This was the lone BC coin I bought from BC 5, I'd put it at the mid to lower end of the lower mid-range grouping. Personally, while I think it is pretty (the dpl gives the toning a nice "watery" look to it), I would not give it a star.
This next coin is what I would call part of the upper middle of the lower mid-range coins. It is a MS63*, and I do believe it to be worthy of the star.
The next coin, a MS63*, I'd call upper mid-range, real nice colors and pattern, but missing that POP of the absolute best BC's.
Finally we get to the high end BC's. This coin's color IN THE IMAGE looks a lot like the color of the above coin, but hold it in hand and the difference is quite noticeable. This coin is an MS64*. Here you have it all (well, almost all, in that technically it is only a 64, so there are some dings. My cleanest top end ones I haven't posted here yet, so I'm saving them for another day),... neat patterns, color and POP.
Every single issue relating to BC Morgans has already been beaten to death; from the NT colors to the discussions about images, from the question of provenance to the analyses of prices realized, it's all been said. So let's just enjoy the coins !!!
... and to those who don't share our enthusiasm, I can only quote my friend Bon Jovi:
"When the world gets in my face, I just say, 'Have a nice day.'"
edited to add: these battle creek morgans all display a natural progression of colors, so what's the beef? Also, these colors really show up well on film because they're on flashy silver basically, all seems pretty real to me.
<< <i>Like I've consistently said, I don't ever give AT/NT opinions, much less do so and call the opinion a "fact" like a lot of folks do.
I've always said I hope these are NT. But the problem, from the beginning, has been that the imaging technique above causes lots of folks to be skeptical. The owners seem to stubbornly miss that point again and again, or resist it for some reason.
You have to admit, if they are as great as the guild says, they would look great held in the palm of your hand and imaged outdoors. You'll see what they really look like. If they don't look good under natural light, well,...
But no one takes the challenge. I'm beginning to think they don't want to show what these really look like, under unforgiving natural light. I would do it, and show the skeptics the glaring reality of their wonder. >>
Bill: I beg to differ with you -- natural outdoor light is NOT the best way to view coins, a 100 watt incandescent bulb in a darkened room free of ambient light is!!! Those are the conditions under which professional graders perform their task at the major TPG's and the way the most professional numismatists choose to view coins if provided the option. Heck, a number of auction companies will turn off the lights in the lot viewing room if requested to do so. Moreover, those are the conditions I utilize in my office to examine coins for grading, evaluation, purchase, writing descriptions, etc. I think a good portion of the reason you are so critical of Gary's images and others of like kind is because you're viewing coins in natural light, which will not allow you to see what we (the professionals and enlightened collectors) do. Try viewing coins under the proper lighting conditions (recommended in most beginning guides to numismatics) and you just may be pleasantly surprised at what you see.
coingame2000.................I just visted your site and was overwhelmed with the quality of your inventory. If you say the battle creek morgans are special coins. Then I will agree. It dont take an expert to see that you know your coins!
It's early. Sometime today one of you should just take one of those outside, hold it in one hand, snap off a shot or two holding the camera in the other hand, and post it. Shouldn't take more than a couple minutes. You've got all day.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
It's early. Sometime today one of you should just take one of those outside, hold it in one hand, snap off a shot or two holding the camera in the other hand, and post it. Shouldn't take more than a couple minutes. You've got all day. >>
Bill, as much as I absolutely love the BC Morgans and I really appreciate the pedigree, I will concede and say that I feel some images of them out there appear as though they're a bit juiced. I own the coin below, and even though the image may not mimic my coin exactly, it does portray what my coin basically shows off as. Believe me, please, when I say that my actual coin (as I think is the case with many of the BC's) is far better looking in reality with it's semi-proof-like surfaces and incredible booming "Pop" luster. I've tried to image it and I certainly don't claim to be an expert photographer but I can take a decent image of a coin, and this BC has been challenging to say the least to capture it in an image as though it were in your hand.
coingame/mikey, I'll assume you'er just being naive in missing the point. Look, these images of yours are SCANS after all. I doubt many here realize that. So don't be lecturing me about "viewing" coins in the best light, unless you are laying your head down on the scanner when you look at them
My point is that a great coin will look great in any imaging environment. And it will do so under the most rigorous, harsh lighting environment, TRUE natural lighting: sunlight.
I want to shift your emphasis from your images to your coins themselves.
Give up the imaging technique, just once. Let's see the coins.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
I think that the coins are probably very nice, but I do think that the photography of them has been spotty. As from the previous BC thread, my offer to shoot one or two of these coins stands.
Again, it is NOT a pedigree. There was no Battle Creek collection before some dealer submitted a bunch of bags of Morgans to NGC. The name was made up after the fact. It is marketing hype. To call it a pedigree is an insult to the great collectors of the past.
Again, it is NOT a pedigree. There was no Battle Creek collection before some dealer submitted a bunch of bags of Morgans to NGC. The name was made up after the fact. It is marketing hype. To call it a pedigree is an insult to the great collectors of the past.
Russ, NCNE >>
I completely disagree with the spirit of this post. I will not argue that the pedigree name began around the time of submission- Big deal! It's still a pedigree which today, tomorow, and 50 years from now will be traceable to its' origin and known history, regardless of how limited that may be at the present time. I think more info on these treasures will come to light as time goes on which will only increase their importance to the toned-collector's genre of this hobby, and the coin hobby in general. To compare the Battle Creek pedigree side by side with Eliasberg or Norweb is of course silly. To just brush this collection aside as meaningless and an insult, is equally silly.
<< <i>coingame2000.................I just visted your site and was overwhelmed with the quality of your inventory. If you say the battle creek morgans are special coins. Then I will agree. It dont take an expert to see that you know your coins! >>
I typed the word "Battle Creek" on ebay search and this is one of the items that came up. I couldn't help but chuckle due to the fact that this looks like what happens with the two opposing views on the subject of Battle Creeks.
<< <i>coingame/mikey, I'll assume you'er just being naive in missing the point. Look, these images of yours are SCANS after all. I doubt many here realize that. So don't be lecturing me about "viewing" coins in the best light, unless you are laying your head down on the scanner when you look at them
Bill: Yes my images are scans but I was refering to Gary's images (which you were criticizing) that were taken with a digital camera. Now back to my images (scans). When I am selecting an image for my website (or whatever) I am viewing the coin itself under a 100 watt incandescent bulb in a darkened environment while comparing it to the scans in order to select those that most accurately depict the color of the coin in hand. We don't get it 100% right one hundred percent of the time but we come darn close. Our goal is to provide an image that looks like the coin in hand when viewed under optimum lighting conditions -- and natural sunlight is not it (otherwise PCGS and NGC would have their graders set up out in the parking lot and only grade coins on sunny days).
Mikey
PS Did I address the issue of the monitor you utilize to view coins -- it can and often does make a tremendous difference in regard to the appearance of a coin.
What collector had these coins before they were submitted to NGC? From what I understand, a dealer or dealers submitted them to NGC in tubes and they're staying mum about where they got them.
<< <i> I typed the word "Battle Creek" on ebay search and this is one of the items that came up. I couldn't help but chuckle due to the fact that this looks like what happens with the two opposing views on the subject of Battle Creeks. >>
<< <i> I typed the word "Battle Creek" on ebay search and this is one of the items that came up. I couldn't help but chuckle due to the fact that this looks like what happens with the two opposing views on the subject of Battle Creeks. >>
Comments
If you're referring to a collector who loves the hobby and loves collecting what he likes, then of course,
As far as the rest of your post and suggestion, my sincere and most respected response can only be...
<< <i><Dizzy, you're the type of guy that most coin dealers can only dream about.>
If you're referring to a collector who loves the hobby and loves collecting what he likes, then of course,
As far as the rest of your post and suggestion, my sincere and most respected response can only be...
<< <i>
<< <i><Dizzy, you're the type of guy that most coin dealers can only dream about.>
If you're referring to a collector who loves the hobby and loves collecting what he likes, then of course,
As far as the rest of your post and suggestion, my sincere and most respected response can only be...
I like the idea, but the thought of never posting here again really makes me
Although I'm sure me never posting again would make some
Jose Battle Creek must have owned those coins. Or maybe it was Joe
<< <i>Fugly BC Morgan...What do you think? >>
GN, Fugly is not accurate IMO. That is a very nice toned Morgan. As to whether it deserves a star rating for high end eye appeal is debatable, but I might suggest that it is a high end 63 and because of the color it was awarded the star. NGC often uses the star as a partial grade bump IMO. It would not surprise me if that coin came back as a 64 without the star. Fugly? I certainly don't think so.
<< <i>If it's a pedigree, then who had them before before NGC found them on their doorstep? >>
I'd assume smoe Dr. did.
<< <i>
<< <i>These BC Morgans sure seem to play ownership musical chairs.
Russ, NCNE >>
Actually Russ, while there was one person who bought many of the best BC's who sold his coins due to financial issues, and another person who currently has many of the best who has sold some of his, just one level "below the best", BC coins (to make room for other coins), the absolute best BC's (roughly about 30 coins) currently are in very strong hands. They aren't going anywhere. Then you have the mid-range BC stuff which is still being absorbed into the market (roughly 300 coins, I just bought one at the Santa Clara show and will post it tomorrow). From what I've seen there is some shuffling going on among this group. Then you have the lower midrange coins, about 500, and the BC by NGC's grace only coins, roughly 550-600. Most of the BC musical chairs you see is going on in these last two categories. >>
Thanks for posting this SkyMan! So out of the 1400 coins, around 330 are in the 2 best categories and about 1050 - 1100 are in the 2 worst categories. These numbers say that 25% are the nice ones and 75% aren't. I would also agree with SkyMan that the nicest of the BC coins are in strong hands and basically aren't going anywhere. This is probably true with most of the hoards that come out - - the nicest coins bring the highest prices and go into the strongest hands. So I would expect that most of the BC coins being resold now are the lower-quality ones.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>Seriously Dizzy, what is the Battle Creek pedigree? There is so much unknown about the source not too many un-Pedigree Koolaid drinkers put much worth in it. For every two believers there is one non-believer. Therefore with this pedigree in particular it is much safer to buy the coin, not the pedigree. Now with Clapp, Eliasberg, or Duke's Creek we are talking different animals. >>
Battle Creek is not a "pedigree". It's a made up marketing gimmick.
Russ, NCNE
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
I've always said I hope these are NT. But the problem, from the beginning, has been that the imaging technique above causes lots of folks to be skeptical. The owners seem to stubbornly miss that point again and again, or resist it for some reason.
You have to admit, if they are as great as the guild says, they would look great held in the palm of your hand and imaged outdoors. You'll see what they really look like. If they don't look good under natural light, well,...
But no one takes the challenge. I'm beginning to think they don't want to show what these really look like, under unforgiving natural light. I would do it, and show the skeptics the glaring reality of their wonder.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>Ever the one to stir the chit... like you say pharmer. These BC coins are so magnificent, that they don't need to be in a holder with a made up name on the tag. So what's keeping you(as in those who own BC slabs) from cracking yours out of their holders?????? >>
For that matter, why not crack out every gorgeous coin of any series from their entombed slab???
<< <i>LETS POST BATTLE CREEK MONSTERS HERE
Sounds like a great idea!
<< <i>GN, Fugly is not accurate IMO. That is a very nice toned Morgan. As to whether it deserves a star rating for high end eye appeal is debatable, but I might suggest that it is a high end 63 and because of the color it was awarded the star. NGC often uses the star as a partial grade bump IMO. It would not surprise me if that coin came back as a 64 without the star. Fugly? I certainly don't think so. >>
Hmmm....
OK, I'll back off the "fugly." But I can find at least a dozen more attractively toned raw bag-toners at any 75+ table show. On a toning scale of one to ten, that coin is a two. I wouldn't pay a single cent of premium for the toning. Submitted raw, it will not *.
What I really think some of the BC crowd struggles with is that when I rip on the Island Coin style photos, I'M NOT RIPPING THE COINS. I have no doubt the coins look a million times BETTER than those ridiculous photos. I love some of the pictures Sunnywood has posted. Nor am I critical of the prices paid for them.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ever the one to stir the chit... like you say pharmer. These BC coins are so magnificent, that they don't need to be in a holder with a made up name on the tag. So what's keeping you(as in those who own BC slabs) from cracking yours out of their holders?????? >>
For that matter, why not crack out every gorgeous coin of any series from their entombed slab???
Missed my point entirely. The point was: how could any serious numismatist compare the "pedigree?" of BC to the provenance(thanks, Frankcoins) of Norweb, Eliasberg, Pittman, etc. etc.????????
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>Pedigree....The listing of a coin’s current owner plus all known previous owners (from NumisMedia) >>
Pedigree is a term for the bloodline of living things. For non living items, the term is
Provenance
The history of the ownership of an object, especially when documented or authenticated. Used of artworks, antiques, and books.
The records or documents authenticating such an object or the history of its ownership.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ever the one to stir the chit... like you say pharmer. These BC coins are so magnificent, that they don't need to be in a holder with a made up name on the tag. So what's keeping you(as in those who own BC slabs) from cracking yours out of their holders?????? >>
For that matter, why not crack out every gorgeous coin of any series from their entombed slab???
Missed my point entirely. The point was: how could any serious numismatist compare the "pedigree?" of BC to the pedigree of Norweb, Eliasberg, Pittman, etc. etc.????????
Sorry for the point miss.
Although I've stated before, comparing pedigrees against one another is apples and oranges.
Battle Creek is a great pedigree, but of course it's not Norweb, nor is it Eliasberg. Trying to say any pedigrees are more famous or impressive than those two is just being silly IMO.
But I'll state it again, I very much enjoy the BC pedigree of special Morgans.
--Jerry
<< <i>LETS POST BATTLE CREEK MONSTERS HERE >>
I'm sure they're coming. Anyway, as I said, it's the images, not the coins. Realistic images will bridge the credibility gap.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Thank you Rich for your comments, but you were a bit harsh in including the lower mid-range with the grace of NGC BC coins. There IS a distinct split between them. Many of the lower mid-range are quite attractive and fully deserving of the star... they just don't deserve to be included with the upper grouping(s). As to that "fugly" coin that GN linkified, while I would not consider it fugly, neither would I consider it starworthy. By the above described scale I'd put it at the lowest end of the lower mid-range. The lowest grouping had at best micro-crescents and many coins that were ms60-62 grade.
As to people having issues with the images, these coins have now been in the marketplace for around a year and a half. If you went to either of the last two ANA's, or FUN, or several Baltimore or Long Beach shows you could easily have seen the coins in hand at Island Coins or Coingame2000's or Larry Shepherd's tables and made up your own mind as to the "Look" of the coin. As we all know, NO image is going to give a truly accurate representation of a coin, particularly toners, so you really do need to see them in hand.
Finally I'd like to congratulate FHG for his commonsense approach to this which was to post some pictures (peace to those of you who don't like the images
The first coin is a MS64*DPL I got from the BC 5 auction. Basically the best 850 coins were sold in the first 4 BC auctions, and the scrapings were peddled in BC 5, e.g. the bottom 550-600 (well, technically some of these were dumped at later Superior auctions, but the majority were dumped at BC 5). This was the lone BC coin I bought from BC 5, I'd put it at the mid to lower end of the lower mid-range grouping. Personally, while I think it is pretty (the dpl gives the toning a nice "watery" look to it), I would not give it a star.
This next coin is what I would call part of the upper middle of the lower mid-range coins. It is a MS63*, and I do believe it to be worthy of the star.
The next coin, a MS63*, I'd call upper mid-range, real nice colors and pattern, but missing that POP of the absolute best BC's.
Finally we get to the high end BC's. This coin's color IN THE IMAGE looks a lot like the color of the above coin, but hold it in hand and the difference is quite noticeable. This coin is an MS64*. Here you have it all (well, almost all, in that technically it is only a 64, so there are some dings. My cleanest top end ones I haven't posted here yet, so I'm saving them for another day),... neat patterns, color and POP.
Have a good one folks!
EDITED TO ADD: Nice coins FHG!!!
U.S. Type Set
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
... and to those who don't share our enthusiasm, I can only quote my friend Bon Jovi:
"When the world gets in my face, I just say, 'Have a nice day.'"
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
edited to add: these battle creek morgans all display a natural progression of colors, so what's the beef? Also, these colors really show up well on film because they're on flashy silver basically, all seems pretty real to me.
<< <i>Like I've consistently said, I don't ever give AT/NT opinions, much less do so and call the opinion a "fact" like a lot of folks do.
I've always said I hope these are NT. But the problem, from the beginning, has been that the imaging technique above causes lots of folks to be skeptical. The owners seem to stubbornly miss that point again and again, or resist it for some reason.
You have to admit, if they are as great as the guild says, they would look great held in the palm of your hand and imaged outdoors. You'll see what they really look like. If they don't look good under natural light, well,...
But no one takes the challenge. I'm beginning to think they don't want to show what these really look like, under unforgiving natural light. I would do it, and show the skeptics the glaring reality of their wonder. >>
Bill: I beg to differ with you -- natural outdoor light is NOT the best way to view coins, a 100 watt incandescent bulb in a darkened room free of ambient light is!!! Those are the conditions under which professional graders perform their task at the major TPG's and the way the most professional numismatists choose to view coins if provided the option. Heck, a number of auction companies will turn off the lights in the lot viewing room if requested to do so. Moreover, those are the conditions I utilize in my office to examine coins for grading, evaluation, purchase, writing descriptions, etc. I think a good portion of the reason you are so critical of Gary's images and others of like kind is because you're viewing coins in natural light, which will not allow you to see what we (the professionals and enlightened collectors) do. Try viewing coins under the proper lighting conditions (recommended in most beginning guides to numismatics) and you just may be pleasantly surprised at what you see.
Mikey
Visit Our Website @ www.numisvision.com
Specializing in DMPL Dollars, MONSTER toners and other Premium Quality U.S. Coins
*** Visit Mike De Falco's NEW Coin Talk Blog! ***
<< <i>
<< <i>
Atta Boy!!! Now that's what we're talking about. What an absolute beauty of a pair! >>
I'm hoping you observed it's the same coins, same image, more tweaked.
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Atta Boy!!! Now that's what we're talking about. What an absolute beauty of a pair! >>
I'm hoping you observed it's the same coins, same image, more tweaked.
-D >>
It's early. Sometime today one of you should just take one of those outside, hold it in one hand, snap off a shot or two holding the camera in the other hand, and post it. Shouldn't take more than a couple minutes. You've got all day.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>There you go, a believer. Well done.
It's early. Sometime today one of you should just take one of those outside, hold it in one hand, snap off a shot or two holding the camera in the other hand, and post it. Shouldn't take more than a couple minutes. You've got all day. >>
Bill, as much as I absolutely love the BC Morgans and I really appreciate the pedigree, I will concede and say that I feel some images of them out there appear as though they're a bit juiced.
I own the coin below, and even though the image may not mimic my coin exactly, it does portray what my coin basically shows off as. Believe me, please, when I say that my actual coin (as I think is the case with many of the BC's) is far better looking in reality with it's semi-proof-like surfaces and incredible booming "Pop" luster.
I've tried to image it and I certainly don't claim to be an expert photographer but I can take a decent image of a coin, and this BC has been challenging to say the least to capture it in an image as though it were in your hand.
My point is that a great coin will look great in any imaging environment. And it will do so under the most rigorous, harsh lighting environment, TRUE natural lighting: sunlight.
I want to shift your emphasis from your images to your coins themselves.
Give up the imaging technique, just once. Let's see the coins.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Battle Creek is a great pedigree >>
Again, it is NOT a pedigree. There was no Battle Creek collection before some dealer submitted a bunch of bags of Morgans to NGC. The name was made up after the fact. It is marketing hype. To call it a pedigree is an insult to the great collectors of the past.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>Battle Creek is a great pedigree >>
Again, it is NOT a pedigree. There was no Battle Creek collection before some dealer submitted a bunch of bags of Morgans to NGC. The name was made up after the fact. It is marketing hype. To call it a pedigree is an insult to the great collectors of the past.
Russ, NCNE >>
I completely disagree with the spirit of this post. I will not argue that the pedigree name began around the time of submission- Big deal! It's still a pedigree which today, tomorow, and 50 years from now will be traceable to its' origin and known history, regardless of how limited that may be at the present time. I think more info on these treasures will come to light as time goes on which will only increase their importance to the toned-collector's genre of this hobby, and the coin hobby in general. To compare the Battle Creek pedigree side by side with Eliasberg or Norweb is of course silly. To just brush this collection aside as meaningless and an insult, is equally silly.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>To just brush this collection aside as meaningless and an insult, is equally silly. >>
This is very true - especially to anyone who has a sizable inventory of the Coins.
<< <i>You don't have a clue, Dizzy.
Russ, NCNE >>
That's a relief, at least we feel the same way about each other's views on this.
<< <i>coingame2000.................I just visted your site and was overwhelmed with the quality of your inventory. If you say the battle creek morgans are special coins. Then I will agree. It dont take an expert to see that you know your coins! >>
Thank you -- I appreciate the kind words.
Mikey
Visit Our Website @ www.numisvision.com
Specializing in DMPL Dollars, MONSTER toners and other Premium Quality U.S. Coins
*** Visit Mike De Falco's NEW Coin Talk Blog! ***
I couldn't help but chuckle due to the fact that this looks like what happens with the two opposing views on the subject of Battle Creeks.
<< <i>coingame/mikey, I'll assume you'er just being naive in missing the point. Look, these images of yours are SCANS after all. I doubt many here realize that. So don't be lecturing me about "viewing" coins in the best light, unless you are laying your head down on the scanner when you look at them
Bill: Yes my images are scans but I was refering to Gary's images (which you were criticizing) that were taken with a digital camera. Now back to my images (scans). When I am selecting an image for my website (or whatever) I am viewing the coin itself under a 100 watt incandescent bulb in a darkened environment while comparing it to the scans in order to select those that most accurately depict the color of the coin in hand. We don't get it 100% right one hundred percent of the time but we come darn close. Our goal is to provide an image that looks like the coin in hand when viewed under optimum lighting conditions -- and natural sunlight is not it (otherwise PCGS and NGC would have their graders set up out in the parking lot and only grade coins on sunny days).
Mikey
PS Did I address the issue of the monitor you utilize to view coins -- it can and often does make a tremendous difference in regard to the appearance of a coin.
Visit Our Website @ www.numisvision.com
Specializing in DMPL Dollars, MONSTER toners and other Premium Quality U.S. Coins
*** Visit Mike De Falco's NEW Coin Talk Blog! ***
<< <i> I typed the word "Battle Creek" on ebay search and this is one of the items that came up.
I couldn't help but chuckle due to the fact that this looks like what happens with the two opposing views on the subject of Battle Creeks. >>
First Strike anyone?
<< <i>
<< <i> I typed the word "Battle Creek" on ebay search and this is one of the items that came up.
I couldn't help but chuckle due to the fact that this looks like what happens with the two opposing views on the subject of Battle Creeks. >>
First Strike anyone? >>
Another good one.