It always bothers me a little that I see 3:1 nice obverse vs reverse toned Morgans. Seems to me that there are only a few potential possibilities here:
1. My observation is incorrect and there are actually equal numbers of each. 2. The obverse tones more nicely due to its physical properties. 3. Pretty reverse toners get no respect and therefore nobody posts them or gives them names. 4. Coin docs preferentially AT Morgan obverses. 5. Some combination of the above.
I really like many of these and they're fun to look at when I see them in dealers cases, but I can't bring myself to pay a huge toning premium to acquire them. Most of them just seem a little "over the top" when I compare them to color photos of Morgan toners from books from the 1970s. Maybe the art of photography wasn't as advanced at the time, maybe more recent photos are juiced a bit. Some of these just don't seem natural to my inexperienced, mostly naïve eye. >>
I've thought much the same before. Plus, every single one is a common date, where are the better date reverse-toned monster toners?
the abundance of obverse toned common date Morgans, with bands of amber, pink, and blue neatly bisecting or framing the design, is telling, imo. >>
"There are more reverse toned coins out there with beautiful color because the surface is flatter than the obverse..." - from the text on that page linked with the toners. Did that mean there are more Rev. toners out there than Obv.? I dunno - is states nearly 3/4 of a billion minted, with about 10,00 toners in existence (anything with any part of a rainbow, such as the estimated 1,400 crescent-toned Morgans) including low-end toners, of which there are about 200 monsters. That would be way, way, way less than 0.00001%? All toners, including low end (example shown in link) comprise .001522 % of all Morgans? I am sure these folks with the wonderful page and coins know more than I will ever imagine, but these numbers, accurate or not, are too small for me. 625 high-end toned Morgan toners out of 656 million - I dunno. No idea how many exist now in MS. From that 625, there are 200 monsters. And that page shows 150 of them (of the high end with 625, including the 200 monsters). All I am saying is these numbers are very small, even if only a very small fraction of Morgans remain. Nothing about AT or that article/site etc.
Shucks, I could go for just about any of them. I don't give a hang about dates, mintmarks, even grade. To me it is all about the color. I have been saving for a long time and come the Central States show, I should be good to go. The closest I have been able to get so far is a great reverse toner.
<< <i>If they were giving them away for free/melt I would take Christmas tree but not really my thing.
Even to these eyes most look decidedly NT and most are attractive enough, I just don't like the market or markups as they tend not to be quite as logical as the type markets. The whims of a fickle and emotional collector base is not what I want the shady 2 way market built on to preserve an investment. >>
This.
"Christmas Tree" would be my pick based on color, but this isn't really my thing.
I could get something else in another type with just as much "kick" for the same money. Even without exercising my preference for the Darkside.
PS- don't get me wrong- they are kinda pretty, and it's neat to see 'em all arrayed like that.
Even if there were only 100-200 million Morgan today, and a "fraction" remains in MS the% of Monsters would still be less than .0001 percent. Just too small for me.
I would go with The Moose. It appears to be in a very nice state of preservation, a real 68...a common date, but a premium grade. It is also certified by PCGS, which means more to me than the other guys. I like that the toning appears uninterupted by handling marks and has unbroken gradations, even if it is AT, it's a nice coin. The question I ask myself is "what would the coin look like without the toning?" In this case it would still be knock-out.
I already responded that I would pass. Not that I don't care for toning, I do. But, just not so much. I do like to see the coin. To my eyes toning is nice but it hides the coin, hides the hits, and hides the beauty of the dollar itself. I'll take rim toned ones all day long, though.
This is my preference: bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
Christmas tree is my favorite though I'm not saying I'd pay the going rate for it.
I don't care how impressive the color is on a MS64 or lower coin. I'm not paying those multiples. The coin has to be MS65 or higher, and preferably 66 and higher. Monster colors on a 67 or 68 are hardly common. Fabulous colors on a 62/63 coin does not impress me....at least not for 50X bid. I still regret passing on a higher end 1890-cc MS64 that had these kinds of colors (magenta maniac). It was "only" at 4X bid.
<< <i>I would go with The Moose...even if it is AT, it's a nice coin. >>
So now one of the most widely known epic toners in existence is suddenly AT? I guess we've come to a point where no reason whatsoever is required to accuse a coin of being AT, aside from it having nice color. "Oh that sure has pretty colors. Must be artificially toned." Edit: Don't get me wrong, suspicion is healthy when it comes to colorful toned coins, but baseless AT accusations are unwarranted and unhealthy for any dialogue regarding these types of coins.
I own Darth Verde-one of the ones shown at the beginning. And I can say with a straight and honest face I paid less than half the price shown--it was not bought through or from JhonECash.
Here`s something fun I just thought of with one of mine... It`s called "Wicked" in Brandon`s article but we re-named it "Blushing Wonder"... I have several of my Morgans in articles and on magazine covers and it has a cool factor to it... Following the magazine pics here`s another view... BTW the "Black Opal" a former Sonnier coin of mine is truly something to gaze upon...
I like the coins. But agree that the names are a bit much. I think "cutesy" was being polite. Some of the names are outright stupid. Blushing Volcano? I can understand as a marketing tool on a website, but if you bought the coin and you still call it that in your home, come on you're a grown man. Name sounds like some one threw a dart at 2 lists ad lib style. One with a list of adjectives and another a list of nouns and voila, name your coin. (I don't mean this as a post to AB directly who owns 30 of the coins, just as a general observation. In the end we do what we like and if that includes naming your coins like teddy bears then so be it.)
Brandon's write up on toning is great and a great service. But I disagree with this section. I don't disagree with the coin probably being AT. Those electric blues with that progression near that magenta always look AT to me. But the bit on the foreign material IMO is wrong. Depending on what the material is, it could have easily oozed a toning blocking substance while the coin NT'd around it causing the halo effect. If its some kind of light oil base oozed that over time evenly oozed out to block that close area it would look just like that.
Here is another one similar to the one at the top-right. This image shows a coin with several problems. It is raw and cleaned which you can see by the hairlines in the field. The spectrum on this coin is Orange-Pink-Purple-Royal Blue-Light Blue. This is NOT the proper color spectrum of Peach-Light Blue-Yellow-Magenta-Royal Blue-Emerald Green. Additionally, the little piece of foreign material on the top cotton ball has a bright halo around it. That may be an indication of accelerated toning. On a suspected AT coin, if it has this "feature", that is another mark against the coin being natural.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>So, where are the gorgeous reverse toners?
It always bothers me a little that I see 3:1 nice obverse vs reverse toned Morgans. Seems to me that there are only a few potential possibilities here:
1. My observation is incorrect and there are actually equal numbers of each.
2. The obverse tones more nicely due to its physical properties.
3. Pretty reverse toners get no respect and therefore nobody posts them or gives them names.
4. Coin docs preferentially AT Morgan obverses.
5. Some combination of the above.
I really like many of these and they're fun to look at when I see them in dealers cases, but I can't bring myself to pay a huge toning premium to acquire them. Most of them just seem a little "over the top" when I compare them to color photos of Morgan toners from books from the 1970s. Maybe the art of photography wasn't as advanced at the time, maybe more recent photos are juiced a bit. Some of these just don't seem natural to my inexperienced, mostly naïve eye. >>
I've thought much the same before. Plus, every single one is a common date, where are the better date reverse-toned monster toners?
the abundance of obverse toned common date Morgans, with bands of amber, pink, and blue neatly bisecting or framing the design, is telling, imo. >>
"There are more reverse toned coins out there with beautiful color because the surface is flatter than the obverse..." - from the text on that page linked with the toners. Did that mean there are more Rev. toners out there than Obv.?
I dunno - is states nearly 3/4 of a billion minted, with about 10,00 toners in existence (anything with any part of a rainbow, such as the estimated 1,400 crescent-toned Morgans) including low-end toners, of which there are about 200 monsters. That would be way, way, way less than 0.00001%?
All toners, including low end (example shown in link) comprise .001522 % of all Morgans?
I am sure these folks with the wonderful page and coins know more than I will ever imagine, but these numbers, accurate or not, are too small for me.
625 high-end toned Morgan toners out of 656 million - I dunno. No idea how many exist now in MS. From that 625, there are 200 monsters. And that page shows 150 of them (of the high end with 625, including the 200 monsters).
All I am saying is these numbers are very small, even if only a very small fraction of Morgans remain. Nothing about AT or that article/site etc.
Eric
because it's original and part of the family
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
<< <i>If they were giving them away for free/melt I would take Christmas tree but not really my thing.
Even to these eyes most look decidedly NT and most are attractive enough, I just don't like the market or markups as they tend not to be quite as logical as the type markets. The whims of a fickle and emotional collector base is not what I want the shady 2 way market built on to preserve an investment. >>
This.
"Christmas Tree" would be my pick based on color, but this isn't really my thing.
I could get something else in another type with just as much "kick" for the same money. Even without exercising my preference for the Darkside.
PS- don't get me wrong- they are kinda pretty, and it's neat to see 'em all arrayed like that.
Just not worth the moon money, IMHO.
Eric
so much. I do like to see the coin. To my eyes toning is nice but it hides the coin, hides
the hits, and hides the beauty of the dollar itself. I'll take rim toned ones all day long, though.
This is my preference:
bob
I don't care how impressive the color is on a MS64 or lower coin. I'm not paying those multiples. The coin has to be MS65 or higher, and preferably 66 and higher. Monster colors on a 67 or 68 are hardly common.
Fabulous colors on a 62/63 coin does not impress me....at least not for 50X bid. I still regret passing on a higher end 1890-cc MS64 that had these kinds of colors (magenta maniac). It was "only" at 4X bid.
<< <i>I would go with The Moose...even if it is AT, it's a nice coin. >>
So now one of the most widely known epic toners in existence is suddenly AT? I guess we've come to a point where no reason whatsoever is required to accuse a coin of being AT, aside from it having nice color. "Oh that sure has pretty colors. Must be artificially toned."
Chance favors the prepared mind.
BTW the "Black Opal" a former Sonnier coin of mine is truly something to gaze upon...
AB
Here is another one similar to the one at the top-right. This image shows a coin with several problems. It is raw and cleaned which you can see by the hairlines in the field. The spectrum on this coin is Orange-Pink-Purple-Royal Blue-Light Blue. This is NOT the proper color spectrum of Peach-Light Blue-Yellow-Magenta-Royal Blue-Emerald Green. Additionally, the little piece of foreign material on the top cotton ball has a bright halo around it. That may be an indication of accelerated toning. On a suspected AT coin, if it has this "feature", that is another mark against the coin being natural.