<< <i>This is an interesting example of how different folks can view a coin since most people here appear to really like the coin, yet I think it has negative eye appeal and that it would not be in my collection regardless of price. >>
My first impression is that coin has a similar look to some NCS processed gold. I would also doubt the coins originality. I would not want to take a chance that the market will decide that what I see as a NCS-like look is no longer acceptable.
I personally would prefer to have a roll of attractive original gem+ proof Morgans than the 1913. Given the production circumstances of the 1913, the proof morgans seem more "real" to me. This is of course a personal preference, nothing more. And, I would have to caveat it with the fact, that I would much rather have the 1913 if I could sell it....and then have a whole bunch classics than just a roll of gorgeous proof Morgans.
Regarding the issue that Tom brings up. I agree to the extent that the coin would most likely have to be dipped to get this appearance, although the contrast juicing could hide toning that could be present. There are "bag white" examples of classic coins, but this coin was obviously never in a bag...and would have been stored in a medium that would have caused toning...most likely deep toning consistent with proof sets of the day.
While I dont find the coin unattractive, I dont find it ideal either. Dipping can sometimes improve a coin in my eyes depending on the toning. This might be a case of that if the coin had blotchy brown toning originally. It does strip the surface to an extent though...every dip diminishes the mirrors in some manner.
Lastly, and changing the subject here, is the sad fact that we see only these cameo black and white processed coins in the monster grades. This coin has been around a while I think, but many coins on this site stink of the NCS/NGC relationship.
Where does Albanese find these monsters? The answer to that question is from multiple sources. Albanese Coins takes many coins on consignment from many dealers. Very little of the inventory is owned.
The 1804 was struck in 1834, so it has only remained this clean for 173 years.
Regardless, this is an exciting coin and one of the two best that I am aware of. I think that the Stack family gave one to the Smitsonian sometime within the last 20 years. That was also a Gem.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
My first reaction was to wonder what flavor dip was used on that coin. I'm surprised it took so many posts before it came up. I wonder what it used to look like. Could have been tastefully toned, could have been a little hazy.
<< <i>Who? Me? Speaking only for myself, I can say with great confidence that I do not want my proof Morgan Dollar to look like this.
You want a crusty proof morgan? >>
I just prefer my coins not to look like they've been nuclear radiated.
There are a few of these sorts of coins around - including some Barber material in NGC PF69 holders - all bright white. There must be a market for these, somewhere, but they seem to hang around for a while. >>
It may be because I've never seen a Morgan in that grade or with that much frost, but that picture doesn't look right. It must look different in-hand. Looks like a cloudy area in front of Liberty's nose & eyes.
Still, very nice coin and probably under-priced if that is the true grade.
Some MS Morgans go for $200,000 and more due to condition rarity.
Always looking for attractive rim toned Morgan and Peace dollars in PCGS or (older) ANA/ANACS holders!
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
Just because the coin is 115 years old does not ipso facto mean that it definitely has been dipped. I own several and have seen countless more German and German States proofs from approximately the same time period (1890-1920) in DCAM and UCAM holders that are brilliant white and show phenomenal black/white contrast. Have every last one of them been dipped? I find that hard to believe.
I would submit that every last one "blast white DCAM" gem Morgan has been dipped along the way. Since these were sold wrapped in sulfur laden paper, they should have toned. The only way to prevent toning would have meant specially wrapping them in something air tight.....not very likely in the late 19th, early 20th century period. Most of those guys wanted to see their coins. And they were only worth a small amount above face value as well.
For my dollar I'd much prefer an attractively toned PF65-67 for about 5-10% of the price of that PF69, or better yet the entire matching year proof set to complement the Morgan...with $60-90K left over. This PF69 DCAM Morgan will turn colors at some point in time. Albanese appears to prefer blast white type coins. Not my cup of tea though.
I wouldn't want a roll of DCAM Morgans or the 1913 nickel if I had the dough to spend. But a roll of gem PF seated dollars would do just fine. The Proof Morgans are incredibly available in high grades compared to the Proof Seated Dollars. But I do understand that the demand for Morgans both in date sets and for 20th cent. type sets increases demand.
All right folks, this thread has been derailed. The PR64 coin that TDN spoke of is the 1804 $10 gold piece; the coin I started with was the $1 Morgan. So, my comment #3 above is irrelevant. Thanks to an astute observer, my misconception (and hopefully yours) has been corrected. On with the posts and be aware there are now two coins in play.
There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. –John Adams, 1826
Comments
There's no "E" in "TRULY"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>This is an interesting example of how different folks can view a coin since most people here appear to really like the coin, yet I think it has negative eye appeal and that it would not be in my collection regardless of price. >>
My first impression is that coin has a similar look to some NCS processed gold. I would also doubt the coins originality. I would not want to take a chance that the market will decide that what I see as a NCS-like look is no longer acceptable.
<< <i>Does anyone know the history of this coin? Did it always look like this? I find it hard to believe it remained this clean for 203 years.
My guess is that, in hand, the coin does not look like that. In this photo, the coin looks like a modern proof-69/70.
All of the proof gold I have seen offered by this seller (and most sellers, for that matter) has the processed look.
Regarding the issue that Tom brings up. I agree to the extent that the coin would most likely have to be dipped to get this appearance, although the contrast juicing could hide toning that could be present. There are "bag white" examples of classic coins, but this coin was obviously never in a bag...and would have been stored in a medium that would have caused toning...most likely deep toning consistent with proof sets of the day.
While I dont find the coin unattractive, I dont find it ideal either. Dipping can sometimes improve a coin in my eyes depending on the toning. This might be a case of that if the coin had blotchy brown toning originally. It does strip the surface to an extent though...every dip diminishes the mirrors in some manner.
Lastly, and changing the subject here, is the sad fact that we see only these cameo black and white processed coins in the monster grades. This coin has been around a while I think, but many coins on this site stink of the NCS/NGC relationship.
Where does Albanese find these monsters?
The answer to that question is from multiple sources. Albanese Coins takes many coins on consignment from many dealers. Very little of the inventory is owned.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Regardless, this is an exciting coin and one of the two best that I am aware of. I think that the Stack family gave one to the Smitsonian sometime within the last 20 years. That was also a Gem.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
<< <i>Who? Me? Speaking only for myself, I can say with great confidence that I do not want my proof Morgan Dollar to look like this.
You want a crusty proof morgan? >>
I just prefer my coins not to look like they've been nuclear radiated.
There are a few of these sorts of coins around - including some Barber material in NGC PF69 holders - all bright white. There must be a market for these, somewhere, but they seem to hang around for a while. >>
Yeah, no kidding.
–John Adams, 1826
Still, very nice coin and probably under-priced if that is the true grade.
Some MS Morgans go for $200,000 and more due to condition rarity.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
In hand, it looks exactly like the image.
<< <i>
<< <i>In this photo, the coin looks like a modern proof-69/70. >>
In hand, it looks exactly like the image. >>
With coins like these, who needs tribute coins?
<< <i>My guess is that, in hand, the coin does not look like that. In this photo, the coin looks like a modern proof-69/70.
In hand, it looks exactly like the image.
So it looked like that in the PF 64 holder? Was it PCGS or NGC?
I keed, I keed!
I am a collector
And things, well things
They tend to accumulate
Both [it was in one holder with the other's tag attached]. It definitely looked like a gem in hand - I have no problem with the 65* grade.
I would submit that every last one "blast white DCAM" gem Morgan has been dipped along the way. Since these were sold wrapped in sulfur laden paper, they should have toned. The only way to prevent toning would have meant specially wrapping them in something air tight.....not very likely in the late 19th, early 20th century period. Most of those guys wanted to see their coins. And they were only worth a small amount above face value as well.
For my dollar I'd much prefer an attractively toned PF65-67 for about 5-10% of the price of that PF69, or better yet the entire matching year proof set to complement the Morgan...with $60-90K left over. This PF69 DCAM Morgan will turn colors at some point in time. Albanese appears to prefer blast white type coins. Not my cup of tea though.
I wouldn't want a roll of DCAM Morgans or the 1913 nickel if I had the dough to spend. But a roll of gem PF seated dollars would do just fine. The Proof Morgans are incredibly available in high grades compared to the Proof Seated Dollars. But I do understand that the demand for Morgans both in date sets and for 20th cent. type sets increases demand.
roadrunner
–John Adams, 1826