A pic of your coin like this would probably settle any debate once and for all. Do you have some that you can post of both sides of the coin?
The high gloss appearance of the fields in your tilted shots just look funny, so we shouldn't be surprised at some of the comments questioning the coin. Just my $.02.
I like the B&W look. (Again, why I posted.) Most certainly all morgan proofs are not frosted, or every single one would be a cameo. I personally do not think this would get Cam, but with the beautiful clean fields, it still looks totally black.
I'll send it in. What the Hell. It is certainly nicer than my 1901 that went 63......by far. Not a hairline to be found on this baby.
I once saw an 1887 Proof Half Dollar with whizzed fields that looked very similar to your coin--note the area on the 1887 Morgan above the arrows on the reverse. I hope this is not the case with your coin.
TomT-1794
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
When I see halos around devices and thinner mirrors the closer you get to the raised areas I think polished. Typically the sunken parts of the die have a slight concave slope that maintains the PL finish better than the exposed fields and I don't see any of that in this coin, actualy just the opposite. I hope it grade but I wouldn't waste my money on it
<< <i>I once saw an 1887 Proof Half Dollar with whizzed fields that looked very similar to your coin--note the area on the 1887 Morgan above the arrows on the reverse. I hope this is not the case with your coin. >>
I agree. That's not a good sign. The upper reverse fields look wavy, like proof gold. I've never seen a proof Morgan that didn't have dead flat fields with a hard look. This one looks like bondo was used or something...or maybe the fields were heated treated with something. Not a spec of color anywhere. But I've only seen a few hundred proof Morgans over the years. My spidey sense is not getting a good vibe here. I think the fields were worked and then the devices were frosted.
Comments
A pic of your coin like this would probably settle any debate once and for all. Do you have some that you can post of both sides of the coin?
The high gloss appearance of the fields in your tilted shots just look funny, so we shouldn't be surprised at some of the comments questioning the coin. Just my $.02.
I'll send it in. What the Hell. It is certainly nicer than my 1901 that went 63......by far. Not a hairline to be found on this baby.
<< <i> Just my $.02. >>
this is honestly one of the best or nearly the best image i've seen of a morgan dmpl vibronic. tx for posting it!
it actually accomplishes the trio i look for in high quality cam/dcam images
1. the frosty/matte look on devices
2. the even depth of the fields
3. the contact marks popping out
.
<< <i>
<< <i> Just my $.02. >>
this is honestly one of the best or nearly the best image i've seen of a morgan dmpl vibronic. tx for posting it!
it actually accomplishes the trio i look for in high quality cam/dcam images
1. the frosty/matte look on devices
2. the even depth of the fields
3. the contact marks popping out
. >>
Oh, it's not my image, I just recycled it from blu62's post 10+ comments earlier.
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
eric
Hoard the keys.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>I once saw an 1887 Proof Half Dollar with whizzed fields that looked very similar to your coin--note the area on the 1887 Morgan above the arrows on the reverse. I hope this is not the case with your coin. >>
I agree. That's not a good sign. The upper reverse fields look wavy, like proof gold. I've never seen a proof Morgan that didn't have dead flat fields with a hard look. This one looks like bondo was used or something...or maybe the fields were heated treated with something. Not a spec of color anywhere. But I've only seen a few hundred proof Morgans over the years. My spidey sense is not getting a good vibe here. I think the fields were worked and then the devices were frosted.
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.