<< <i>they could be off base but still a good artical >>
Not really a 'good' article, and the list is garbage- the 93-s is by far tougher in MS than most any other coin on the list- the 83CC is common, the 92 or 93 CC can be found, the 95 is tough, but out there if the price is right.
Im sorry, but this member is nothing more than someone SPAMMING the forum. All Morgan threads, none make any real sense, all by a new member, all one post and then nothing from the op.
I know some might say otherwise, but this is SPAM!
Yeah, that one is really out there. Causes me to wonder if there's not some underlying agenda. An attempt (however feeble) to cause a run on the 1883-CC.
I would, but your style and posting behavior have led me to this belief. SPAM. I know I might be wrong, and I hope that I am. But I doubt it. You only post a thread, with one post, then start several other threads that are pretty much the same topic. Never to reply to your other threads. Unless you are new to the internets, you know how a basic message board works. I think you are trying to hype up a certain coin(s) that you are holding or something and hoping to sell for more than normal.
looks like a lot of good mumbo jumbo, but no way in hell! All I can say is I hope he has good luck with that and he can let us all know how that works for him.
PEACE! This is the first day of the rest of your life.
What is up with the OP, and all the morgan threads? Are you from China, fishing for info and pics? Fact: 82, 83, and 84 CC Morgans are as common as beach sand, even in 65. Over half the total mintages for all three, were dispursed during the Treasury release of the early 60's Millions of these are available today, and millions will be available in 100 years. You want uncommon, a 93S in 66. Chill with the threads. No one cares about every purchase you make. Scott
I agree - SPAM attempt. The dollars on that list are idiotic. Devised by someone that has something to sell. And yes, most likely the 1883cc that is easy as pie to obtain. The people behind the site are most likely loaded with them.
I also agree that the 1895 is ludicrous. It is not in the same class as the other 4 being availble only in proof.
facts: new member, cites a specific obscure web site (probably run by an IDIOT that paid big bucks for that domain name and is trying to recoup the losses), didn't bother to choose a working avatar, etc.
What a scam!
BTW: Are you from Maryland - around Baltimore perhaps?
The dwarf sperm whale is about eight feet in length, and weighs around 300 pounds. The great blue whale can exceed 100 feet in length, and weighs upwards of twenty tons (40,000 pounds !!). So, it's all relative !!
Ironically, the third from last decent dollar I could find (after striking out at the ANA, Portland, on the internet, BST, and a myriad of other sites) for my set was the 1897!!! I would rate it as one of the better 'sleepers' in the series! Hard to find (of course now that I have got one they seem as common as horseflies). My brief scan of this website noted the 1897 comments.
Many Morgan hunters agreed when I mentioned the trouble I was having locating a nice 64/65 specimen. The only two I had after that were a decent 1892-O and 1896-S, but I had an easier time with the other semi-keys and keys than the 1897.
Comments
the only date listed that i'm somewhat partial to is 1894 (1895 has been overrated for years in my opinion)
www.brunkauctions.com
<< <i>they could be off base but still a good artical >>
Not really a 'good' article, and the list is garbage- the 93-s is by far tougher in MS than most any other coin on the list- the 83CC is common, the 92 or 93 CC can be found, the 95 is tough, but out there if the price is right.
article is junk- propaganda junk...
<< <i>they could be off base but still a good artical >>
If it's "off-base", how could it possibly be a good article?
<< <i>
<< <i>they could be off base but still a good artical >>
If it's "off-base", how could it possibly be a good article? >>
Maybe he simply found it interesting without much substantive value?
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
Perhaps they are looking for the potential return or underrated coins in the Morgan series?
I dunno, even as I'm typing this... I think they're wrong. I would like to have read some of their reasoning for their choices.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>they could be off base but still a good artical >>
If it's "off-base", how could it possibly be a good article? >>
Maybe he simply found it interesting without much substantive value? >>
Anything is possible, but somehow I'm getting the feeling that someone is about to offer me a bag of 1883-CC Morgans.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>they could be off base but still a good artical >>
If it's "off-base", how could it possibly be a good article? >>
Maybe he simply found it interesting without much substantive value? >>
Anything is possible, but somehow I'm getting the feeling that someone is about to offer me a bag of 1883-CC Morgans. >>
I suppose that is not outside the realm of possibilities either.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
Followed very distantly by the 1892-CC.
With only 880 proofs produced in 1895 and no business strikes to speak of, I can't see how this coin can even make this list.
I'm not sure I understand how his point system works. He doesn't even mention condition rarity, extant population, etc.
1883-CC
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
I know some might say otherwise, but this is SPAM!
<< <i>1883-CC
Yeah, that one is really out there. Causes me to wonder if there's not some underlying agenda. An attempt (however feeble) to cause a run on the 1883-CC.
The analytical approach in the article is rather flawed.
I would, but your style and posting behavior have led me to this belief. SPAM. I know I might be wrong, and I hope that I am. But I doubt it. You only post a thread, with one post, then start several other threads that are pretty much the same topic. Never to reply to your other threads. Unless you are new to the internets, you know how a basic message board works.
I think you are trying to hype up a certain coin(s) that you are holding or something and hoping to sell for more than normal.
Yes, I am assuming there.
But again, I say I doubt it.
Fred, Las Vegas, NV
Are you from China, fishing for info and pics?
Fact: 82, 83, and 84 CC Morgans are as common as beach sand, even in 65.
Over half the total mintages for all three, were dispursed during the Treasury release of the early 60's
Millions of these are available today, and millions will be available in 100 years.
You want uncommon, a 93S in 66.
Chill with the threads. No one cares about every purchase you make.
Scott
Herb
I also agree that the 1895 is ludicrous. It is not in the same class as the other 4 being availble only in proof.
facts: new member, cites a specific obscure web site (probably run by an IDIOT that paid big bucks for that domain name and is trying to recoup the losses), didn't bother to choose a working avatar, etc.
What a scam!
BTW: Are you from Maryland - around Baltimore perhaps?
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Here, I'll feed the .... (sorry, no 1895 proof; I've only seen one I liked, but was outbid by Sperber's billionaire whale)
IMO a whale calling a whale a whale is
You see sir, to me you're a whale, in numismatic terms only of course.
Herb
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Many Morgan hunters agreed when I mentioned the trouble I was having locating a nice 64/65 specimen. The only two I had after that were a decent 1892-O and 1896-S, but I had an easier time with the other semi-keys and keys than the 1897.
Just my personal experience.
Drunner