Do you like this toning?

Bruceswar

3 Part question. Do you like the toning? Do you think it is AT or MA or NT? Anything else you care to add. Sorry for the crappy images.

anablep

No.

AT.

Looks radioactive.

Bruceswar

<< <i>No.

AT.

Looks radioactive. >>



And your reason for calling it AT is?

SeattleSlammer

The pics are way too overexposed to get a read on the colors.

rainbowroosie

I would not buy that coin.

morgansforever

Sorry, but it has the Easter egg coloring look to it.
The images aren't crappy, a bit bright, not bad at all. Detail looks pretty crisp from here.

Sonorandesertrat

If the images accurately depict the toning, I would steer clear. FWIW, I do have a secondary collection of wildly toned (bag and end roll) Morgans.

UNLVino

I'm in the like it crowd. Not sure why, but I do. Not qualified to guess AT or NT.

yellowkid

Sometimes hard to tell from a photo, but it looks like AT, and no, I don't like it, and I love toned coins.

lkeigwin

I commented ATS. No, I do not like it and I think it is AT. Sorry.
Lance.

Goldbully

<< <i>I commented ATS. No, I do not like it and I think it is AT. Sorry.
Lance. >>



I'm with Lance and the others....AT....not a naturally toned Morgan.....color spectrum looks way off to me.

If Lloyd and Sunnywood view the coin, they will be the best judges.

Did you purchase the coin yet?

Justacommeman

The complete coverage of toning on both sides has me more concerned then the colors which could be just a result of a poor image. MJ

stman

Sorry, I don't like the look, it looks circulated and it almost has a mirror image obverse and reverse. If the image is accurate of the Easter egg colors too many red flags on this one. Although it doesn't have to have pull-away around the date and devices, I don't see any true pull-away so nothing helps convince me it's not bunk.

BryceM

I don't like it. It doesn't look "old". It doesn't look "natural". NT usually isn't this uniform and symmetric. I'm no AT expert, but this coin would not interest me.

blu62vette

I am not a fan of the photo, no idea what the coin really looks like. It would be great color for a 98-S but also looks like an AU coin.

darktone

I think certain types of laundry deteragant/bleach will cause this.

Zoins

I'm not a fan of this look. It looks questionable and unattractive to me. Just my 2 cents.

291fifth

AT. Looks to be of very recent vintage.

AUandAG

If you are doing this to dollars, please stop.

AT

Horrible.

bob

stealer

Hard to tell from photos that seem to have had their contrast cranked up but does NOT look MA to me.

Bruceswar

<< <i>If you are doing this to dollars, please stop.

AT

Horrible.

bob >>



I buy coins... I do not AT coins. I think many of you might have a different opinion in hand of this coin. One image does not do this coin justice.

blu62vette

<< <i>

<< <i>If you are doing this to dollars, please stop.

AT

Horrible.

bob >>



I buy coins... I do not AT coins. I think many of you might have a different opinion in hand of this coin. One image does not do this coin justice. >>



Is this the seller image? What is different on the coin compared to the supplied image?

michiganboy

Is it Easter already? Looks like someones been dipping there Morgan dollars in a little easter sulfer mix for the holidays.

JRocco

When you look up the word boinked in the dictionary, a pic of that shows up. No other words needed.
Sorry

Justlooking

From these photos ... ghastly.

Kaline6

In the photo, the fields look dull and pockmarked, almost cast-looking.

Goldbully

<< <i>The complete coverage of toning on both sides has me more concerned then the colors which could be just a result of a poor image. MJ >>



Good point MJ.

coindeuce

This is the classic appearance of a circulated silver coin that has had accelerated toning imparted to it to try to improve marketability. I'd buy it as merely an AU-50. Nothing more.

Bruceswar

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>If you are doing this to dollars, please stop.

AT

Horrible.

bob >>



I buy coins... I do not AT coins. I think many of you might have a different opinion in hand of this coin. One image does not do this coin justice. >>



Is this the seller image? What is different on the coin compared to the supplied image? >>



These are my quick crappy images. In hand the coin is slightly darker and when looked at certain ways the color is strong while other ways the color is almost not there. I will take it to the National Money Show in Dallas and let you look at it.

magikbilly

Pics leave wanting.
Well. No, irrelevant and nothing.

Best wishes,
Eric

Edit to add: I am not saying you AT'd this if it seems others might be; perhaps I misread. Just answering your questions.

Tiny

It is not that I don't like the coin, it's the picture that is bad. You have it in hand
so you be the judge. If you like it them get it graded but it will be a Code 91 from
PCGS FOUR SURE.

mrpotatoheadd

<< <i>3 Part question. Do you like the toning? >>

No.

<< <i>Do you think it is AT >>

Yes.

<< <i>or MA >>

Market in general? I wouldn't think so but it depends on the buyer, I suppose.

<< <i>or NT? >>

No.

CoinJunkie

Don't like it. Looks AT. No "pullaway" from any of the high points plus atypical color progressions
are the reasons it looks suspect to me.

coinguy1989

Lighting can make a world of difference when viewing toned coins generally. Based on the current image, it is clearly circulated, and likely cleaned and retoned. The toning looks artificial to me. In any event, I don't care for it a bit, and I would never buy the coin. I would call it XF details, cleaned, AT.

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>3 Part question. Do you like the toning? Do you think it is AT or MA or NT? Anything else you care to add. Sorry for the crappy images. >>



i don't mean to pile on, but i'll say

1. i do not
2. at
3. circ coins like this are AT to artificially add potential value. i love reporting AT coin on ebay
.

DorkGirl

I have had a few Morgans that look similar to this one. They were scrubbed then put in a cardboard box. So they were NT, but not really nice, especially at that grade.

lordmarcovan

<< <i>Do you like the toning? >>

Yes, actually.



<< <i>Do you think it is AT or MA or NT? >>

What's "MA"? Massachusetts? That was struck in San Francisco. Haha. I think it might be AT, but I don't really care. I don't own it and I might not be trying to slab it if I did, so hey- it's purdy as far as I'm concerned. 100% natural or original? Nah, maybe not. But again, I don't really care.

Edit: aha. "MA" = Market Acceptable. I shoulda known that. Forum Lingo Dictionary to the rescue. (Thanx, Dawg.)



<< <i>Anything else you care to add. Sorry for the crappy images. >>

Not really, though the images look far from crappy to my eye. Look pretty good from where I sit.

joebb21

no. its an au coin that looks cleaned and then retoned much after.

CEOcoinshopcom

I am a no go with this one.
Think there's a bit on hanky and panky going on.

jmj3esq

I dont like it. It looks AT. Sell it. Someone may believe its NT and give you a premium.

bestclser1

See on these Forums,you ask,you get answers,some you may not like Number one,Its AT,number 2,its AU,and number 3 98-S Morgans in particular do NOT tone like that.Anything else i can be of service to you in my opinions my friend!

chumley

bstclsr ....I would love to hear your appraisel of my motherin law

TheBigB

I also vote cleaned and retoned.

bestclser1

<< <i>bstclsr ....I would love to hear your appraisel of my motherin law >>

Hey Chumley,Hope all is well,you know i always have so much difficulty in speaking my mind!

DoubleEagle59

1. No.

2. AT.

3. Nothing at all.

joeykoins

I too agree with the crowd.No! It looks funky,maybe cleaned? See,on this board you learn a lot.At least this school will never go on strike. ( I'm from Chicago,School problems!)

Shamika

Don't like neon colors nor do I think they are NT.

Zoins

Maybe this should be a poll