Options
What a hideous coin...
GoldenEyeNumismatics
Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭
1893-S $1, NGC MS65
Dipped out, with a terribly boring appearance. Even Greg Roahn notes its "subdued luster" in the video description.
Dipped out, with a terribly boring appearance. Even Greg Roahn notes its "subdued luster" in the video description.
0
Comments
"hideous", no. dipped like nearly every other boring looking Morgan out there, yes.
<< <i>"hideous", no. dipped like nearly every other boring looking Morgan out there, yes. >>
I wonder what adjectives are reserved for coins that are worse than this? (and if those words will get through the bad-word filter)
Edited to add: Slow on draw, skip last two, then go to last three....sheesh!
<< <i>Interesting definition of the word 'hideous'.
I wonder what adjectives are reserved for coins that are worse than this? (and if those words will get through the bad-word filter) >>
IMO, there are three kinds of hideous: the kind where the coin is naturally downright ugly, the kind where the color has been played with and the results were downright ugly, and the type where the coin was played with too much and nothing was done to make it look better. This piece is the latter, IMO.
Hideous (definition #1):
(actually, this one might be a little bit of 1 and 2. Not sure)
From another concurrent thread:
Hideous (definition #2):
Hideous (definition #3):
(sorry for the full sized heritage photos. I don't off hand know how to reduce the size of these without rehosting the image. And I don't want to rehost this image.)
If they were similarly priced, i'd take hideous #3 any day. But I see that "H3" here is a six figure coin. Heh.
I wouldn't mind owning it.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
What's more "hideous" to me is the price one has to pay to compete in the popularity contest known as key date collecting.
PCGS has graded 3,715 of these? I'd take a nice, original VF or EF coin over this one any day and use the money I'd save to cure poverty in some small African country!
<< <i>I agree with Doogy's assessment of this coin.
What's more "hideous" to me is the price one has to pay to compete in the popularity contest known as key date collecting.
PCGS has graded 3,715 of these? I'd take a nice, original VF or EF coin over this one any day and use the money I'd save to cure poverty in some small African country!
I know that I could buy an XF one for about $10k.. and with the savings buy a Land Rover....
DEALERSHIP!
--Severian the Lame
Hideous- no- maybe a bit overworked- could be- but this pic tells nothing of the coin- nor the build up by Heritage- who ever did this committed an injustice to the consignor.
I have 2- in 63- no I wont post pics- but if I could unload both at 3+ money to get this one- I would.
one should not criticize something one can not see- don't judge the photo!
<< <i>Apparently- a few do not recognize a rarity of a coin as this.
>>
you lost me at rare... tis common in the larger scheme of things.
now if you would have said a "condition rarity" i would have not
bothered post.
I thought I recognized NGC's handywork.
<< <i>1893-S $1, NGC MS65
Dipped out, with a terribly boring appearance. Even Greg Roahn notes its "subdued luster" in the video description. >>
Hideous may be a bit extreme, but I agree with your assessment. I tend to try avoid drinking the "kool aid", but high end Morgans are one area where PCGS is simply just tighter than NGC. In my opinion, PCGS would demand better luster to grade the coin 65 and this coin would grade 64 every time at PCGS.
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
The Reeded Edge
<< <i>Apparently- a few do not recognize a rarity of a coin as this.
Hideous- no- maybe a bit overworked- could be- but this pic tells nothing of the coin- nor the build up by Heritage- who ever did this committed an injustice to the consignor.
I have 2- in 63- no I wont post pics- but if I could unload both at 3+ money to get this one- I would.
one should not criticize something one can not see- don't judge the photo! >>
The coin is obviously overdipped. It's plain from the photos. The frost is gone from the eagle's breast. Even Greg Rohan described the luster as being "muted" and that it doesn't look as brilliant as some Morgans look (AKA, it looks weird). While most other video descriptions spent lengthy portions describing piece's eye appeal, this one essentially avoids the subject of eye appeal altogether, save for the single phrase that the piece "looks like a headlight" in regard to the frost. I don't know what the heck that means. He spends more time talking about how sharply struck up the piece is. Well, please show me an 1891-S to 1894-S $1 that isn't struck well.
The contact marks have even lost some of their "fresh metal" appearance. I'm also a little suspicious of the texture on the cheek.
True, I have not seen the piece in hand. However, I'm fairly confident in my ability to "read" pictures.
I often ask myself when I see a high grade rarity "would this coin be graded the same if it were a common date?" I believe the answer with this piece is no. My personal experience with submitting less rare pieces that have been overdipped is that a coin like this would grade MS64. Perhaps the contact marks are that of a 65, but the luster and eye appeal are simply dull, and for an S-Mint Morgan there's little leniency for that. IMO this is just another example of a square label NGC coin that was given leniency simply because it was rare.
MORGANHUNTER2, if I wasn't confident in my assumptions based on the photo, I wouldn't say them publicly.
<< <i>"looks like a headlight" >>
<< <i>
<< <i>1893-S $1, NGC MS65
Dipped out, with a terribly boring appearance. Even Greg Roahn notes its "subdued luster" in the video description. >>
Hideous may be a bit extreme, but I agree with your assessment. I tend to try avoid drinking the "kool aid", but high end Morgans are one area where PCGS is simply just tighter than NGC. In my opinion, PCGS would demand better luster to grade the coin 65 and this coin would grade 64 every time at PCGS. >>
This is the sort of NGC coin I would own and send for crossover a few times and get a different rejection every time. (Altered Surfaces being the typical reason though.)
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
It's a classic example of an NGC Morgan Dollar conservation job.
The resulting effect is the loss of most of its luster.
Let us clean it and we'll holder it for you.
The question is......would it cross or even grade at PCGS?
<< <i>It's a classic example of an NGC Morgan Dollar conservation job.
The resulting effect is the loss of most of its luster.
Let us clean it and we'll holder it for you.
The question is......would it cross or even grade at PCGS? >>
I strongly doubt this coin was NCS'd.
i'll tell you what is truly hideous. Actually trying to use Heritage's hideous pictures to judge a coin, and then making the claim that you can tell a coin by their photographs.
If there is something that Heritage is consistant with, it is taking really bad photographs/scans of really rare coins. I can't think of a single Heritage coin that I've purchased from their photographs, that looked anywhere close to the actual coin. With that being said, only a fool would spend high six or seven figures for one of their coins, without seeing it first or having a proxy in the room to personally view it.
It may have muted luster, but for a rarity such as this, MS65 can be somewhat "market acceptable" with slightly muted luster. Heck, even PCGS's own grading terms said that a slight bit of rub or cabinet friction is acceptable up to MS67. We all know how the services "need" these coins in their pop reports and will race to the top to one up each other; don't make drag out the tired 1804 dollar saga where both services have gone back and forth grading these coins, each time upping their grade and actually justifying it.
crazy stuff
<< <i>i'll tell you what is truly hideous. Actually trying to use Heritage's hideous pictures to judge a coin, and then making the claim that you can tell a coin by their photographs.
If there is something that Heritage is consistant with, it is taking really bad photographs/scans of really rare coins. I can't think of a single Heritage coin that I've purchased from their photographs, that looked anywhere close to the actual coin. With that being said, only a fool would spend high six or seven figures for one of their coins, without seeing it first or having a proxy in the room to personally view it.
It may have muted luster, but for a rarity such as this, MS65 can be somewhat "market acceptable" with slightly muted luster. Heck, even PCGS's own grading terms said that a slight bit of rub or cabinet friction is acceptable up to MS67. We all know how the services "need" these coins in their pop reports and will race to the top to one up each other; don't make drag out the tired 1804 dollar saga where both services have gone back and forth grading these coins, each time upping their grade and actually justifying it.
crazy stuff >>
Their photos are not very good, but they're consistent. It's true that it is impossible to judge a coin from the close-up image, but it's much easier when looking at the full slab image. If it was so ridiculous, I wouldn't be able to consistently make money doing it.
The luster isn't "slightly muted." It's simply dull. And it's my belief that overdipping isn't the only problem with the coin.
you can see some luster. its not real bright and
may have some muted luster but, your not going to
see any luster with dinner plate size pics either.
<< <i>
<< <i>i'll tell you what is truly hideous. Actually trying to use Heritage's hideous pictures to judge a coin, and then making the claim that you can tell a coin by their photographs.
If there is something that Heritage is consistant with, it is taking really bad photographs/scans of really rare coins. I can't think of a single Heritage coin that I've purchased from their photographs, that looked anywhere close to the actual coin. With that being said, only a fool would spend high six or seven figures for one of their coins, without seeing it first or having a proxy in the room to personally view it.
It may have muted luster, but for a rarity such as this, MS65 can be somewhat "market acceptable" with slightly muted luster. Heck, even PCGS's own grading terms said that a slight bit of rub or cabinet friction is acceptable up to MS67. We all know how the services "need" these coins in their pop reports and will race to the top to one up each other; don't make drag out the tired 1804 dollar saga where both services have gone back and forth grading these coins, each time upping their grade and actually justifying it.
crazy stuff >>
Their photos are not very good, but they're consistent. It's true that it is impossible to judge a coin from the close-up image, but it's much easier when looking at the full slab image. If it was so ridiculous, I wouldn't be able to consistently make money doing it.
The luster isn't "slightly muted." It's simply dull. And it's my belief that overdipping isn't the only problem with the coin. >>
I'll believe you on the "simply dull" only when you view it in hand, and report back to us. Until then , you are doing nothing more than than I am; viewing a set of pictures from a company that is consistantly apathetic about providing it's clients with clear pictures. Funny thing is, the only person that seems to be a real possible buyer for this coin in this thread, is the person that already has two examples in MS63; and he is willing to give both up to own this one. That alone tells me something.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>i'll tell you what is truly hideous. Actually trying to use Heritage's hideous pictures to judge a coin, and then making the claim that you can tell a coin by their photographs.
If there is something that Heritage is consistant with, it is taking really bad photographs/scans of really rare coins. I can't think of a single Heritage coin that I've purchased from their photographs, that looked anywhere close to the actual coin. With that being said, only a fool would spend high six or seven figures for one of their coins, without seeing it first or having a proxy in the room to personally view it.
It may have muted luster, but for a rarity such as this, MS65 can be somewhat "market acceptable" with slightly muted luster. Heck, even PCGS's own grading terms said that a slight bit of rub or cabinet friction is acceptable up to MS67. We all know how the services "need" these coins in their pop reports and will race to the top to one up each other; don't make drag out the tired 1804 dollar saga where both services have gone back and forth grading these coins, each time upping their grade and actually justifying it.
crazy stuff >>
Their photos are not very good, but they're consistent. It's true that it is impossible to judge a coin from the close-up image, but it's much easier when looking at the full slab image. If it was so ridiculous, I wouldn't be able to consistently make money doing it.
The luster isn't "slightly muted." It's simply dull. And it's my belief that overdipping isn't the only problem with the coin. >>
I'll believe you on the "simply dull" only when you view it in hand, and report back to us. Until then , you are doing nothing more than than I am; viewing a set of pictures from a company that is consistantly apathetic about providing it's clients with clear pictures. Funny thing is, the only person that seems to be a real possible buyer for this coin in this thread, is the person that already has two examples in MS63; and he is willing to give both up to own this one. That alone tells me something. >>
Yes, and that very person stated the piece appears "maybe a bit overworked." I'm not arguing that the piece isn't desirable (even though I think there are much better coins to spend $300k-$500k on). I just think it's downright ugly.
golden eye...upon reading your take and looking at that huge image
i can see and agree that this one was worked over
better then my 1st impression
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
<<I'll believe you on the "simply dull" only when you view it in hand, and report back to us. Until then , you are doing nothing more than than I am; viewing a set of pictures from a company that is consistantly apathetic about providing it's clients with clear pictures. Funny thing is, the only person that seems to be a real possible buyer for this coin in this thread, is the person that already has two examples in MS63; and he is willing to give both up to own this one. That alone tells me something. >>
>>
Since I won't be at the show and do not have a proxy to view it, I'm not going to bid on this one, but I do hope one of our boardies here take a look at this coin and chime in on what it looks like in hand. I'm venturing to guess the dull appearance could be muddled as in a bit over dipped. Golden Eye-if you are at the show, maybe a comment by you if you have a chance to eyeball it.
and Doogy- what does it tell you if someone is willing to trade/sell off something they own in a lower grade to get this particular specimen, I'm curious.
Oh- Happy New Year to all the boardies.
remember to do all things in moderation, you will live longer.
Not my kind of look for a Morgan so I'd pass even if I could afford it.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>Morgans are my least favorite most popular series...if that makes sense >>
Great quote. I'll drink to that!!!
If I had the money, I wouldn;t hesitate to bid.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>What a shame. It's probably been dipped by several different parties several times. >>
Given the different shades of the obverse and reverse, I don't think this coin has been dipped in the past 50 years.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Good grief some of you need to start the New Year early, go have a couple hot toddies and relax.