Of course, you, him, and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I'm sure many people disagree with me.
Hey! When the Bible was written, 99.999% of the population believed the Earth was flat! Opinions can change. Maybe in 2000 more years PCGS will recognize these for what they are.
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
I have this and the other hidden monster in hand and while I could never say never as far as AT.....in hand this and the other coin are super nice and look to be 100% NT. These were shown to probably a dozen dealers at FUN and not one person questioned the authenticity of the color and obviously PCGS feels the coin is at least MA. Bushmaster I know you know your stuff and I respect your opinion but when you call just about every toned coin posted on these forums AT as you now seem to do I feel it deminishes your opinion (little boy that creid wolf). I also think opinions based soley on images are somewhat suspect to begin with and I would include my opinion in that statment as well.
Of course, you, him, and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I'm sure many people disagree with me.
Hey! When the Bible was written, 99.999% of the population believed the Earth was flat! Opinions can change. Maybe in 2000 more years PCGS will recognize these for what they are. >>
Well unless you have evidence to support your claims, then they are just opinions.
<< <i>I have this and the other hidden monster in hand and while I could never say never as far as AT.....in hand this and the other coin are super nice and look to be 100% NT. These were shown to probably a dozen dealers at FUN and not one person questioned the authenticity of the color and obviously PCGS feels the coin is at least MA. Bushmaster I know you know your stuff and I respect your opinion but when you call just about every toned coin posted on these forums AT as you now seem to do I feel it deminishes your opinion (little boy that creid wolf). I also think opinions based soley on images are somewhat suspect to begin with and I would include my opinion in that statment as well. >>
Thank you for your deduction Shane! Much appreciated that someone who saw it in hand can vouch for their authenticity.
Shane, I completely understand your comments (re: boy cried WOLF!).
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT?
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
Having seen the stuff that Bushie is talking about I have become a LOT more cautious about toning on Franklins (indeed silver in general). However, IMO, the bottom line is what the coin looks like in hand. I trust Shane's judgement on AT/NT. Very sweet looking coin for the date/mm.
<< <i>Shane, I completely understand your comments (re: boy cried WOLF!).
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
for the record...I think some of the coins your labeling AT are probaly AT even if we can't prove it
The two Morgans in question at first glance do not appear to be AT to me but...
#1 the toning is a bit odd as they would appear to be bag toned coins but the lighter outer toning with the darker device toning is reminiscent of envelope toning but the reverses look like album toning to me. Certainly something to question but not a smoking gun
#2 the toning is almost identical between the two coins which in some small way could be explained if they were stored together in the same environment but it's certainly not common to see two so similar.
#3 I don't see the untoned shadows around the date and periphery from metal flow that I am used to seeing on bag toned morgans espcially of these dates but again we don't see it on every coin so I don't think we can automatically lable coins without the shadow as AT.
At this point based on the images alone I would deem them market acceptable with a few questions marks but nothing that I could pin point as being an AT bullseye.
<< <i>Shane, I completely understand your comments (re: boy cried WOLF!).
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
for the record...I think some of the coins your labeling AT are probaly AT even if we can't prove it
The two Morgans in question at first glance do not appear to be AT to me but...
#1 the toning is a bit odd as they would appear to be bag toned coins but the lighter outer toning with the darker device toning is reminiscent of envelope toning but the reverses look like album toning to me. Certainly something to question but not a smoking gun
#2 the toning is almost identical between the two coins which in some small way could be explained if they were stored together in the same environment but it's certainly not common to see two so similar.
#3 I don't see the untoned shadows around the date and periphery from metal flow that I am used to seeing on bag toned morgans espcially of these dates but again we don't see it on every coin so I don't think we can automatically lable coins without the shadow as AT.
At this point based on the images alone I would deem them market acceptable with a few questions marks but nothing that I could pin point as being an AT bullseye. >>
The 2 toner Morgans that Bushmaster linked up show consistent patterns of color change as the relief changes. No abrupt color changes as you move from the field on to Miss Liberty. Lighter colors show up in shallower relief areas. The color changes across the open fields are somewhat gradual. I don't know if Bushmaster is implying that these Morgans are similar or different than the Franklin. To me they look quite different.
On the Franklin the color change in the middle of the field where the relief is not changing is rather striking. Then the deeper color "climbs" from the field on top of Ben's head, though it does transition from a light green first. And there are a number of irregular bends in the rainbow toning as it moves around the field. Why no real signs of rainbow toning from around 5:00 to 7:00? The progression of colors near the letters LIB vs. TY seem to be reversed (light to dark vs dark to light). The right obverse field rainbow toning seems to end very abruptly as if their was a "tape line" left over. The left obv field also shows the same effect though not as striking. Shouldn't that mid-field coloration blend or difuse a little less radically than that? If the coin were not in PCGS in plastic and then shown to the same people again would their NT opinions be as consistent? The Franklin gives me the impression of a typical mottled/streaky brown-silvery mint set toning with rainbows placed over that. I'm no expert on toner dollars and Franks but I would have many more questions concerning the Franklin. Nothing wrong with questioning things.
<< <i>Not surprising that the "mint set doc" has now moved into the "EOR docs'" territory. Very nice work doc, whoever you are.
PCGS: we know who you are, and you need to learn to recognize these. >>
I can assure you these are not artificial. My friend at FUN knows color and wouldnt buy them if he thought they were AT. >>
My comment is not directed at this particular coin, but I believe that some coin docs have entered a new level of deviousness: some are taking legitimate toned specimens, say a half dollar with subtle mint set toning or a Morgan with subtle gold toning or maybe even a crescent, and they are adding color to these coins so that the natural background colors are lending credibility to the AT ones. It is these types of fakes that have the best chance of getting into a top TPG holder, especially if the the coin doc does not go overboard with what he or she adds.
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one >>
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice . >>
ill pm them to you. Dont want the franklin nuts beating down my door for them >>
Generically speaking.....I just laugh whenever someone posts about a superb coin but won't post pictures for whatever reasons (if they have them or a way to get them). Always makes me think there is something controversial, or wrong, with the coin.....
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one >>
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice . >>
ill pm them to you. Dont want the franklin nuts beating down my door for them >>
Generically speaking.....I just laugh whenever someone posts about a superb coin but won't post pictures for whatever reasons (if they have them or a way to get them). Always makes me think there is something controversial, or wrong, with the coin..... >>
Nothinh at all wrong, just the other ones a lot better
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one >>
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice . >>
ill pm them to you. Dont want the franklin nuts beating down my door for them >>
Generically speaking.....I just laugh whenever someone posts about a superb coin but won't post pictures for whatever reasons (if they have them or a way to get them). Always makes me think there is something controversial, or wrong, with the coin..... >>
Nothinh at all wrong, just the other ones a lot better >>
<< <i>I am no Franklin expert but I like that coin. I am somewhat surprised how white the reverse is compared to the obverse, I would expect to see a least a little bit of toning. Although one sided toners are not rare. >>
Most end roll frankie toners are totally white on one side. Unless if you count the ones with ugly water spots as toned.
<< <i> Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
I don't know about the 78, but the 79 is definitely NT. >>
That is a most surprising statement, given that the colors are very, very similar on both coins! >>
Because it would appear to me that the 79 appears to have a lil textile toning. So hence my statement. The 78 doesn't seem to offer this same sort of pattern in the right field. Maybe I'm just seeing things, but this is why I made the statement I did.
<< <i>The two Morgans in question ... I would deem them market acceptable with a few questions marks but nothing that I could pin point as being an AT bullseye. >>
I like that answer. It shows you are still keeping an open mind.
You went from "super coins" in the above linked Morgan thread to "market acceptable w/questions" in this thread.
Not saying you are wishy-washy. Anybody that sees as many toners as you have is going to have formed definite opinions as to what looks right and what does not.
But, (let's replay that broken record!) the AT's now are so good that there is an ever widening gray zone of coins that could be either.
Anybody, including the TPG graders are going to vacillate.
I even doubt myself at times as this next will illustrate. Back to the "Toned To The Bone" Morgan thread:
Please refer back to that thread and scroll down about 2/3 of the way through the thread, to where bestclser1 starts whipping out a whole series of incredible Morgan toners.
Find the 1881-S MS66 PCGS/CAC with serial # 06667... I look at that one and think, "HEY! WAIT A MINUTE!"
"Here is a $ toned in virtually the same shades as the 1878-S and 1879-S at the beginning of the thread. BUT this 81-S shows "shadow toning"
(narrow untoned areas adjacent to the devices)! And we know that "shadows" are almost universally considered to be irrefutable evidence of original
bag toning on Morgans."
Well I felt pretty blue then. Here I had stuck my neck out in saying that the 78-S &79-S were likely AT, and then somebody posts an incredibly
similarly colored coin that must be the real deal! Wishy-washy indeed! Not only stuck my neck out but w/foot-in-mouth!
Now before we move on to the next chapter we need a stipulation:
Mike DeFalco (God Rest His Soul) was considered to a Premier Caliber dealer of Morgan dollars, particularly spectacularly toned Morgan dollars.
If you can't agree with that stipulation, move on. Go read some other thread.
Also, I need to make a qualifying statement regarding Private Messages. PM's are just that. Meant for the eyes of the recipient only. That is a standard to which I adhere, as do most of us on the forums.
Those threads wherein somebody disregards that convention usually go bad and often end up getting poofed.
But I am going to make an exception because Mike is now beyond any repercussions that could arise from my sharing of his words.
In fact, I feel he would be proud to see himself quoted in pursuit of TRUTH.
OK. On with this overly long story....
So I mope around all afternoon after making somewhat of an ass out of myself in the Morgan thread.
When I get home later, imagine my elation and satisfaction upon finding this PM from Mr. DeFalco:
coingame2000
Date Posted: Jun/10/2010 6:52 PM << The 1878-S and 1879-S make a terrific, matched pair! >>
Both done by the same DOC IMHO.
You hit the nail on the head -- they are definitely AT by the same doctor. I know the guy and first stumbled upon his work seven or eight years ago while at a Santa Clara coin show. These two coins were in the Sonnier Collection and were only just recently submitted to PCGS and CAC and they passed both services!!! They fooled Bryan, PCGS and CAC; kind of scary, huh?
Mikey
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
<< <i> I believe that some coin docs have entered a new level of deviousness: some are taking legitimate toned specimens, say a half dollar with subtle mint set toning or a Morgan with subtle gold toning or maybe even a crescent, and they are adding color to these coins so that the natural background colors are lending credibility to the AT ones. It is these types of fakes that have the best chance of getting into a top TPG holder, especially if the the coin doc does not go overboard with what he or she adds. >>
Absolutely correct!
In fact the man that is considered probably the greatest crack-out artist of all is well known in the industry for doing just that.
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
<< <i>The two Morgans in question ... I would deem them market acceptable with a few questions marks but nothing that I could pin point as being an AT bullseye. >>
I like that answer. It shows you are still keeping an open mind.
You went from "super coins" in the above linked Morgan thread to "market acceptable w/questions" in this thread.
Not saying you are wishy-washy. Anybody that sees as many toners as you have is going to have formed definite opinions as to what looks right and what does not.
But, (let's replay that broken record!) the AT's now are so good that there is an ever widening gray zone of coins that could be either.
Anybody, including the TPG graders are going to vacillate.
I even doubt myself at times as this next will illustrate. Back to the "Toned To The Bone" Morgan thread:
Please refer back to that thread and scroll down about 2/3 of the way through the thread, to where bestclser1 starts whipping out a whole series of incredible Morgan toners.
Find the 1881-S MS66 PCGS/CAC with serial # 06667... I look at that one and think, "HEY! WAIT A MINUTE!"
"Here is a $ toned in virtually the same shades as the 1878-S and 1879-S at the beginning of the thread. BUT this 81-S shows "shadow toning"
(narrow untoned areas adjacent to the devices)! And we know that "shadows" are almost universally considered to be irrefutable evidence of original
bag toning on Morgans."
Well I felt pretty blue then. Here I had stuck my neck out in saying that the 78-S &79-S were likely AT, and then somebody posts an incredibly
similarly colored coin that must be the real deal! Wishy-washy indeed! Not only stuck my neck out but w/foot-in-mouth!
Now before we move on to the next chapter we need a stipulation:
Mike DeFalco (God Rest His Soul) was considered to a Premier Caliber dealer of Morgan dollars, particularly spectacularly toned Morgan dollars.
If you can't agree with that stipulation, move on. Go read some other thread.
Also, I need to make a qualifying statement regarding Private Messages. PM's are just that. Meant for the eyes of the recipient only. That is a standard to which I adhere, as do most of us on the forums.
Those threads wherein somebody disregards that convention usually go bad and often end up getting poofed.
But I am going to make an exception because Mike is now beyond any repercussions that could arise from my sharing of his words.
In fact, I feel he would be proud to see himself quoted in pursuit of TRUTH.
OK. On with this overly long story....
So I mope around all afternoon after making somewhat of an ass out of myself in the Morgan thread.
When I get home later, imagine my elation and satisfaction upon finding this PM from Mr. DeFalco:
coingame2000
Date Posted: Jun/10/2010 6:52 PM << The 1878-S and 1879-S make a terrific, matched pair! >>
Both done by the same DOC IMHO.
You hit the nail on the head -- they are definitely AT by the same doctor. I know the guy and first stumbled upon his work seven or eight years ago while at a Santa Clara coin show. These two coins were in the Sonnier Collection and were only just recently submitted to PCGS and CAC and they passed both services!!! They fooled Bryan, PCGS and CAC; kind of scary, huh?
Mikey >>
We're treading on delicate territory here but I certainly understand your reasoning for posting your PMs based on the quest for the truth. I respected Mikey's knowledge of toned coins above all else and as I type I am not comfortable saying I agree or disagree with his perception or recollection of the coins in question. I probably wouldn't feel fully comfortable with my own opinion unless I saw the coins in hand but I am smart enough to know there is always a chance that doctors have gotten this good. I knew that Mikey had some real concerns about some of the monster toned coins entering the market place because he shared that with me as did another prominent ex-toned coin collector. I think the real shakeup started in 2009 though with the whole Alex (nicetoning) tonedcoin trader deal were it was proven that monster AT morgans were getting into NGC and PCGS holders that could fool most folks including the experts. I don't know if that made Mike paranoid the last few years and we certainly can't and shouldn't challenge his opinions on those Morgans you linked. What I can say is that I feel that probably 50% of the coins being tagged as AT on these forums today are probably legit and probably 10 to 15% of the coins we go gaga over and stamp with a solid NT seal are probablty lab created. I think that's why a lot of collectors have moved on to the MA side of the fence...if the coin is too good to tell does it really mater?
Personally I think it does matter as the real question then becomes surface/toning stability but I know I don't have the answer for how to prove it if that whole PCGS sniffer business isn't going to do it. I think the health of the toned coin market is very stable right now and I think the number of players paying $2000 to $10000 for common date toned morgans is still a small fraction of the overall collecting pool.....but I see them at the greatest financial risk, not the new collectors buying $200 dollar toned Morgans. There will always be doctors and they will always get better by honing their craft and there will always be the TPGs that work hard to thwart their efforts. I don't think a resolution to the problems in the hobby should be fought for behind closed doors and topics like coin doctoring in whatever form it takes need to be discussed out in the open like they are in this thread, discussed with facts and fair analysis like we are doing here. That's where the real learning will begin, the hobby protection if you will should be spearheaded by those in the know whether they have a financial stake in the fight or not. The PCGS lawsuit was a step in the right direction even if the first wave did not go as planned.
Personally I want to continue to track down these coins with question marks and see them in hand and try to find what's right and whats wrong with them...patterns if you will. Additionally, Ron Sirna is going to be relaunching the TCCS again very soon and we are planning on being more than just a show and tell website. We want to be in the fore front of toning education, AT detection, and we want to have a loud and proud voice that will help provide hobby protection to those that want to tread into toned waters. I know we can make a difference and I am hoping for a wave over the years and not just a ripple but everything has to start somewhere so hopefully we can even partner with the TPGs down the road and share info, findings, tips, examples of questionable coins etc....why not?
TonedRarities
Posts: 484
Comments
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
<< <i>Wow. That's some color... is it raw? >>
Pssst... "PCGS MS65FBL"
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Wow. That's some color... is it raw? >>
i have an even better one believe it or not, its staying hidden for now
PCGS: we know who you are, and you need to learn to recognize these.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>Not surprising that the "mint set doc" has now moved into the "EOR docs'" territory. Very nice work doc, whoever you are.
PCGS: we know who you are, and you need to learn to recognize these.
I can assure you these are not artificial. My friend at FUN knows color and wouldnt buy them if he thought they were AT.
<< <i>Not surprising that the "mint set doc" has now moved into the "EOR docs'" territory. Very nice work doc, whoever you are.
PCGS: we know who you are, and you need to learn to recognize these.
Greg, please explain.
Of course, you, him, and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I'm sure many people disagree with me.
Hey! When the Bible was written, 99.999% of the population believed the Earth was flat! Opinions can change. Maybe in 2000 more years PCGS will recognize these for what they are.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>Hilarious!
Of course, you, him, and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I'm sure many people disagree with me.
Hey! When the Bible was written, 99.999% of the population believed the Earth was flat! Opinions can change. Maybe in 2000 more years PCGS will recognize these for what they are. >>
Well unless you have evidence to support your claims, then they are just opinions.
<< <i>I have this and the other hidden monster in hand and while I could never say never as far as AT.....in hand this and the other coin are super nice and look to be 100% NT. These were shown to probably a dozen dealers at FUN and not one person questioned the authenticity of the color and obviously PCGS feels the coin is at least MA. Bushmaster I know you know your stuff and I respect your opinion but when you call just about every toned coin posted on these forums AT as you now seem to do I feel it deminishes your opinion (little boy that creid wolf). I also think opinions based soley on images are somewhat suspect to begin with and I would include my opinion in that statment as well. >>
Thank you for your deduction Shane! Much appreciated that someone who saw it in hand can vouch for their authenticity.
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one
<< <i>
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice
ill pm them to you. Dont want the franklin nuts beating down my door for them
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice
ill pm them to you. Dont want the franklin nuts beating down my door for them
WOW def dont show that one! I think PP will def want to take that one off your hands!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice
ill pm them to you. Dont want the franklin nuts beating down my door for them
WOW def dont show that one! I think PP will def want to take that one off your hands! >>
thanks, ill keep my inbox empty
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT?
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
I don't know about the 78, but the 79 is definitely NT.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
U.S. Type Set
<< <i>Shane, I completely understand your comments (re: boy cried WOLF!).
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
for the record...I think some of the coins your labeling AT are probaly AT even if we can't prove it
The two Morgans in question at first glance do not appear to be AT to me but...
#1 the toning is a bit odd as they would appear to be bag toned coins but the lighter outer toning with the darker device toning is reminiscent of envelope toning but the reverses look like album toning to me. Certainly something to question but not a smoking gun
#2 the toning is almost identical between the two coins which in some small way could be explained if they were stored together in the same environment but it's certainly not common to see two so similar.
#3 I don't see the untoned shadows around the date and periphery from metal flow that I am used to seeing on bag toned morgans espcially of these dates but again we don't see it on every coin so I don't think we can automatically lable coins without the shadow as AT.
At this point based on the images alone I would deem them market acceptable with a few questions marks but nothing that I could pin point as being an AT bullseye.
<< <i>
<< <i>Shane, I completely understand your comments (re: boy cried WOLF!).
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
for the record...I think some of the coins your labeling AT are probaly AT even if we can't prove it
The two Morgans in question at first glance do not appear to be AT to me but...
#1 the toning is a bit odd as they would appear to be bag toned coins but the lighter outer toning with the darker device toning is reminiscent of envelope toning but the reverses look like album toning to me. Certainly something to question but not a smoking gun
#2 the toning is almost identical between the two coins which in some small way could be explained if they were stored together in the same environment but it's certainly not common to see two so similar.
#3 I don't see the untoned shadows around the date and periphery from metal flow that I am used to seeing on bag toned morgans espcially of these dates but again we don't see it on every coin so I don't think we can automatically lable coins without the shadow as AT.
At this point based on the images alone I would deem them market acceptable with a few questions marks but nothing that I could pin point as being an AT bullseye.
in there 110% with you shane.
On the Franklin the color change in the middle of the field where the relief is not changing is rather striking. Then the deeper color "climbs" from the field on top of Ben's head, though it does transition from a light green first. And there are a number of irregular bends in the rainbow toning as it moves around the field. Why no real signs of rainbow toning from around 5:00 to 7:00? The progression of colors near the letters LIB vs. TY seem to be reversed (light to dark vs dark to light). The right obverse field rainbow toning seems to end very abruptly as if their was a "tape line" left over. The left obv field also shows the same effect though not as striking. Shouldn't that mid-field coloration blend or difuse a little less radically than that? If the coin were not in PCGS in plastic and then shown to the same people again would their NT opinions be as consistent? The Franklin gives me the impression of a typical mottled/streaky brown-silvery mint set toning with rainbows placed over that. I'm no expert on toner dollars and Franks but I would have many more questions concerning the Franklin. Nothing wrong with questioning things.
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
I don't know about the 78, but the 79 is definitely NT. >>
That is a most surprising statement, given that the colors are very, very similar on both coins!
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
I don't know about the 78, but the 79 is definitely NT. >>
That is a most surprising statement, given that the colors are very, very similar on both coins! >>
how is that surprising? I have owned/own numerous toning pairs of coins that match perfectly color wise.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
I don't know about the 78, but the 79 is definitely NT. >>
That is a most surprising statement, given that the colors are very, very similar on both coins! >>
how is that surprising? I have owned/own numerous toning pairs of coins that match perfectly color wise. >>
If both coins look almost identical than how can one look AT and the other one potentially not.....that's the point busmaster is trying to make
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
I don't know about the 78, but the 79 is definitely NT. >>
That is a most surprising statement, given that the colors are very, very similar on both coins! >>
how is that surprising? I have owned/own numerous toning pairs of coins that match perfectly color wise. >>
If both coins look almost identical than how can one look AT and the other one potentially not.....that's the point busmaster is trying to make
lol yea thats funny, but the 78 does not raise any flags to my eye.
<< <i>
<< <i>Not surprising that the "mint set doc" has now moved into the "EOR docs'" territory. Very nice work doc, whoever you are.
PCGS: we know who you are, and you need to learn to recognize these.
I can assure you these are not artificial. My friend at FUN knows color and wouldnt buy them if he thought they were AT. >>
My comment is not directed at this particular coin, but I believe that some coin docs have entered a new level of deviousness: some are taking legitimate toned specimens, say a half dollar with subtle mint set toning or a Morgan with subtle gold toning or maybe even a crescent, and they are adding color to these coins so that the natural background colors are lending credibility to the AT ones. It is these types of fakes that have the best chance of getting into a top TPG holder, especially if the the coin doc does not go overboard with what he or she adds.
rainbowtoned on Instagram
https://instagram.com/rainbowtoned/
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice
ill pm them to you. Dont want the franklin nuts beating down my door for them
Generically speaking.....I just laugh whenever someone posts about a superb coin but won't post pictures for whatever reasons (if they have them or a way to get them).
Always makes me think there is something controversial, or wrong, with the coin.....
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice
ill pm them to you. Dont want the franklin nuts beating down my door for them
Generically speaking.....I just laugh whenever someone posts about a superb coin but won't post pictures for whatever reasons (if they have them or a way to get them).
Always makes me think there is something controversial, or wrong, with the coin..... >>
Nothinh at all wrong, just the other ones a lot better
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That end roller is sweet! They sometimes tend to be a bit dark at the rims but this one is perfect! >>
You should see the other one
Well post it already! Dont tease me like that it isnt nice
ill pm them to you. Dont want the franklin nuts beating down my door for them
Generically speaking.....I just laugh whenever someone posts about a superb coin but won't post pictures for whatever reasons (if they have them or a way to get them).
Always makes me think there is something controversial, or wrong, with the coin..... >>
Nothinh at all wrong, just the other ones a lot better
It indeed is!
<< <i>I am no Franklin expert but I like that coin. I am somewhat surprised how white the reverse is compared to the obverse, I would expect to
see a least a little bit of toning. Although one sided toners are not rare. >>
Most end roll frankie toners are totally white on one side. Unless if you count the ones with ugly water spots as toned.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
I don't know about the 78, but the 79 is definitely NT. >>
That is a most surprising statement, given that the colors are very, very similar on both coins! >>
Because it would appear to me that the 79 appears to have a lil textile toning. So hence my statement. The 78 doesn't seem to offer this same sort of pattern in the right field. Maybe I'm just seeing things, but this is why I made the statement I did.
Edited to add: I meant left field of the obverse.
.............the doctors are so good now it boils down to opinions -and to give those on images and a coin not held in hand is futile
<< <i>The two Morgans in question ... I would deem them market acceptable with a few questions marks but nothing that I could pin point as being an AT bullseye.
I like that answer. It shows you are still keeping an open mind.
You went from "super coins" in the above linked Morgan thread to "market acceptable w/questions" in this thread.
Not saying you are wishy-washy. Anybody that sees as many toners as you have is going to have formed definite opinions as to what looks right and what does not.
But, (let's replay that broken record!) the AT's now are so good that there is an ever widening gray zone of coins that could be either.
Anybody, including the TPG graders are going to vacillate.
I even doubt myself at times as this next will illustrate. Back to the "Toned To The Bone" Morgan thread:
Please refer back to that thread and scroll down about 2/3 of the way through the thread, to where bestclser1 starts whipping out a whole series of incredible Morgan toners.
Find the 1881-S MS66 PCGS/CAC with serial # 06667... I look at that one and think, "HEY! WAIT A MINUTE!"
"Here is a $ toned in virtually the same shades as the 1878-S and 1879-S at the beginning of the thread. BUT this 81-S shows "shadow toning"
(narrow untoned areas adjacent to the devices)! And we know that "shadows" are almost universally considered to be irrefutable evidence of original
bag toning on Morgans."
Well I felt pretty blue then. Here I had stuck my neck out in saying that the 78-S &79-S were likely AT, and then somebody posts an incredibly
similarly colored coin that must be the real deal! Wishy-washy indeed! Not only stuck my neck out but w/foot-in-mouth!
Now before we move on to the next chapter we need a stipulation:
Mike DeFalco (God Rest His Soul) was considered to a Premier Caliber dealer of Morgan dollars, particularly spectacularly toned Morgan dollars.
If you can't agree with that stipulation, move on. Go read some other thread.
Also, I need to make a qualifying statement regarding Private Messages. PM's are just that. Meant for the eyes of the recipient only. That is a standard to which I adhere, as do most of us on the forums.
Those threads wherein somebody disregards that convention usually go bad and often end up getting poofed.
But I am going to make an exception because Mike is now beyond any repercussions that could arise from my sharing of his words.
In fact, I feel he would be proud to see himself quoted in pursuit of TRUTH.
OK. On with this overly long story....
So I mope around all afternoon after making somewhat of an ass out of myself in the Morgan thread.
When I get home later, imagine my elation and satisfaction upon finding this PM from Mr. DeFalco:
coingame2000
Date Posted: Jun/10/2010 6:52 PM
<< The 1878-S and 1879-S make a terrific, matched pair! >>
Both done by the same DOC IMHO.
You hit the nail on the head -- they are definitely AT by the same doctor. I know the guy and first stumbled upon his work seven or eight years ago while at a Santa Clara coin show. These two coins were in the Sonnier Collection and were only just recently submitted to PCGS and CAC and they passed both services!!! They fooled Bryan, PCGS and CAC; kind of scary, huh?
Mikey
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>.........show me the MONEY SHOT !
.............the doctors are so good now it boils down to opinions -and to give those on images and a coin not held in hand is futile >>
Numerous color experts have seen this coin and all said NT.
<< <i> I believe that some coin docs have entered a new level of deviousness: some are taking legitimate toned specimens, say a half dollar with subtle mint set toning or a Morgan with subtle gold toning or maybe even a crescent, and they are adding color to these coins so that the natural background colors are lending credibility to the AT ones. It is these types of fakes that have the best chance of getting into a top TPG holder, especially if the the coin doc does not go overboard with what he or she adds. >>
Absolutely correct!
In fact the man that is considered probably the greatest crack-out artist of all is well known in the industry for doing just that.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>I think the whole mini hoard of 60-D's Fairtraderz has/had are suspect- but to each their own >>
Who is Fairtraderz?
<< <i>$900 is a lot for a Franklin IMO. >>
Not really when some sell for 3-4000
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the whole mini hoard of 60-D's Fairtraderz has/had are suspect- but to each their own >>
Who is Fairtraderz? >>
John Schuch
<< <i>
<< <i>$900 is a lot for a Franklin IMO. >>
Not really when some sell for 3-4000 >>
........some sell for 15 or 20 grand
<< <i>
<< <i>The two Morgans in question ... I would deem them market acceptable with a few questions marks but nothing that I could pin point as being an AT bullseye.
I like that answer. It shows you are still keeping an open mind.
You went from "super coins" in the above linked Morgan thread to "market acceptable w/questions" in this thread.
Not saying you are wishy-washy. Anybody that sees as many toners as you have is going to have formed definite opinions as to what looks right and what does not.
But, (let's replay that broken record!) the AT's now are so good that there is an ever widening gray zone of coins that could be either.
Anybody, including the TPG graders are going to vacillate.
I even doubt myself at times as this next will illustrate. Back to the "Toned To The Bone" Morgan thread:
Please refer back to that thread and scroll down about 2/3 of the way through the thread, to where bestclser1 starts whipping out a whole series of incredible Morgan toners.
Find the 1881-S MS66 PCGS/CAC with serial # 06667... I look at that one and think, "HEY! WAIT A MINUTE!"
"Here is a $ toned in virtually the same shades as the 1878-S and 1879-S at the beginning of the thread. BUT this 81-S shows "shadow toning"
(narrow untoned areas adjacent to the devices)! And we know that "shadows" are almost universally considered to be irrefutable evidence of original
bag toning on Morgans."
Well I felt pretty blue then. Here I had stuck my neck out in saying that the 78-S &79-S were likely AT, and then somebody posts an incredibly
similarly colored coin that must be the real deal! Wishy-washy indeed! Not only stuck my neck out but w/foot-in-mouth!
Now before we move on to the next chapter we need a stipulation:
Mike DeFalco (God Rest His Soul) was considered to a Premier Caliber dealer of Morgan dollars, particularly spectacularly toned Morgan dollars.
If you can't agree with that stipulation, move on. Go read some other thread.
Also, I need to make a qualifying statement regarding Private Messages. PM's are just that. Meant for the eyes of the recipient only. That is a standard to which I adhere, as do most of us on the forums.
Those threads wherein somebody disregards that convention usually go bad and often end up getting poofed.
But I am going to make an exception because Mike is now beyond any repercussions that could arise from my sharing of his words.
In fact, I feel he would be proud to see himself quoted in pursuit of TRUTH.
OK. On with this overly long story....
So I mope around all afternoon after making somewhat of an ass out of myself in the Morgan thread.
When I get home later, imagine my elation and satisfaction upon finding this PM from Mr. DeFalco:
coingame2000
Date Posted: Jun/10/2010 6:52 PM
<< The 1878-S and 1879-S make a terrific, matched pair! >>
Both done by the same DOC IMHO.
You hit the nail on the head -- they are definitely AT by the same doctor. I know the guy and first stumbled upon his work seven or eight years ago while at a Santa Clara coin show. These two coins were in the Sonnier Collection and were only just recently submitted to PCGS and CAC and they passed both services!!! They fooled Bryan, PCGS and CAC; kind of scary, huh?
Mikey >>
We're treading on delicate territory here but I certainly understand your reasoning for posting your PMs based on the quest for the truth. I respected Mikey's knowledge of toned coins above all else and as I type I am not comfortable saying I agree or disagree with his perception or recollection of the coins in question. I probably wouldn't feel fully comfortable with my own opinion unless I saw the coins in hand but I am smart enough to know there is always a chance that doctors have gotten this good. I knew that Mikey had some real concerns about some of the monster toned coins entering the market place because he shared that with me as did another prominent ex-toned coin collector. I think the real shakeup started in 2009 though with the whole Alex (nicetoning) tonedcoin trader deal were it was proven that monster AT morgans were getting into NGC and PCGS holders that could fool most folks including the experts. I don't know if that made Mike paranoid the last few years and we certainly can't and shouldn't challenge his opinions on those Morgans you linked. What I can say is that I feel that probably 50% of the coins being tagged as AT on these forums today are probably legit and probably 10 to 15% of the coins we go gaga over and stamp with a solid NT seal are probablty lab created. I think that's why a lot of collectors have moved on to the MA side of the fence...if the coin is too good to tell does it really mater?
Personally I think it does matter as the real question then becomes surface/toning stability but I know I don't have the answer for how to prove it if that whole PCGS sniffer business isn't going to do it. I think the health of the toned coin market is very stable right now and I think the number of players paying $2000 to $10000 for common date toned morgans is still a small fraction of the overall collecting pool.....but I see them at the greatest financial risk, not the new collectors buying $200 dollar toned Morgans. There will always be doctors and they will always get better by honing their craft and there will always be the TPGs that work hard to thwart their efforts. I don't think a resolution to the problems in the hobby should be fought for behind closed doors and topics like coin doctoring in whatever form it takes need to be discussed out in the open like they are in this thread, discussed with facts and fair analysis like we are doing here. That's where the real learning will begin, the hobby protection if you will should be spearheaded by those in the know whether they have a financial stake in the fight or not. The PCGS lawsuit was a step in the right direction even if the first wave did not go as planned.
Personally I want to continue to track down these coins with question marks and see them in hand and try to find what's right and whats wrong with them...patterns if you will. Additionally, Ron Sirna is going to be relaunching the TCCS again very soon and we are planning on being more than just a show and tell website. We want to be in the fore front of toning education, AT detection, and we want to have a loud and proud voice that will help provide hobby protection to those that want to tread into toned waters. I know we can make a difference and I am hoping for a wave over the years and not just a ripple but everything has to start somewhere so hopefully we can even partner with the TPGs down the road and share info, findings, tips, examples of questionable coins etc....why not?