How could a Morgan grade PR68CA with Ugly Toning

BWCoin

How could a Morgan grade PR68CA with Ugly Toning?

roadrunner

duplicate

roadrunner

Eye appeal guidelines

I'd call it above average to even positive. No one sees the same way. One could argue the CAM designation as well with 50% of the coin deeply toned. But I like the idea that aren't forcing these coins to be dipped to earn a CAMEO label. Probably a lot more vibrant in hand. It sure isn't negative eye appeal imo.

BWCoin

Wow I thought dark toning was a negative.

segoja

Super original. Impossible to see the proof surfaces for hairlines, but this coin looks pretty appealing to me.

I'm guessing the surfaces are flawless given the lofty grade.

roadrunner

<< <i>Wow I thought dark toning was a negative. >>



Look at the eye appeal guidelines/photos. On the 1880 and 1883 Morgan dollar obverses they have significant dark patches. Darker blue and green toning is not always neutral or negative, especially with album/wrapper toning as this proof displays. I'd call the obverse above average and reverse positive. A dipped Morgan does nothing for me unless it's a Black/White DMPL or DCAM proof. This coin is right out of a mint wrapper or then spent some time in an album. If the obv toning cut across her cheek maybe there would be something to argue about. But, it's confined to the hair which is much less of a distraction.....that is if colorful toning is a distraction to someone. I love the toning on this coin. Would put a blast white dipped out Cameo to shame. Outside the holder under TPG lighting they can see any hairlines under that toning.

Ablinky

I think this coin looks pretty attractive looking. Remember True-Views although excellent representations of coins. Do not always give coins such as, the proverbial "justice" they deserve.

Weiss

That has to be a trick question. This coin is gorgeous.

DennisH

I can't dispute the grade.

MICHAELDIXON

This is a coin, in my opinion, that you must see in hand. Having owned and sold several, pictures do not capture the true beauty of an outstanding Gem Proof Cameo Morgan dollar.

Wabbit2313

A face only a Mother could love.

TwoSides2aCoin

It's kind of pretty for 136 years old

BWCoin

I just don't see it maybe that's why I don't collect proof Morgan's.

coinbuf

<< <i>I just don't see it maybe that's why I don't collect proof Morgan's. >>



Your not alone not everyone would like this coin, just as not everyone likes mint blast white. Biased on this image I do not find it attractive which might or might not be different in hand.

lostincoins

With the right lighting almost any toned Morgan can be made to look much better than in hand and this is one of those coins.

COALPORTER

The green holder above doesn't say CAMEO ? Did it get upgraded in a newer holder?

DIMEMAN

This coin is beautiful......much better than a blast white ho-hum coin.

golden

<< <i>I just don't see it maybe that's why I don't collect proof Morgan's. >>

CoinJunkie

I like the toning, particularly on the reverse. Very original.

Larger TrueView

WoodenJefferson

If you ~squint~ with one eye closed...it turns into a handsome coin.

Timbuk3

Sweet, I like it !!! :-)

ianrussell

I really like this coin.

- Ian

CuKevin

<< <i> >>



Based on the image, I like the coin, but wouldn't have to have it.

However, I think this coin could look AMAZING in hand where you aren't trying to capture both the toning and CAM surfaces using only one incident of light (the camera).

BustHalfBrian

<< <i>A face only a Mother could love.







>>



IMO, the coin turned in the holder and was re-holdered to prevent further damage. PCGS had no choice but to stand by their original grade.

Shamika

I suspect the coin looks far better in hand than the image suggests.

roadrunner

<< <i>....IMO, the coin turned in the holder and was re-holdered to prevent further damage. PCGS had no choice but to stand by their original grade. >>



I don't think so. It took the better part of 50-100 years to put that toning on due to mint sulfur paper or album toning. That toning didn't come from 15 years sitting in an ogh.

More than likely it was cracked out trying for a 68+, secure-sniffer, or the CAM designation. If there's any chance a 5 figure ogh could go higher....it's out of the holder they come. PCGS was quite stingy with the
PF69 grade back in the 1990's. So why not have them take another look at a 68 ogh for a shot? Nothing to lose really.

ricko

While I am not a fan of the tarnish, the grade is certainly justified..... great coin... Cheers, RickO

Wabbit2313

If the TrueView looks like that, the toning has already turned dark, black, ugly, in my opinion. The Heritage pics of when it was still in an OGH are most likely the "trueview"!

DAM

The Heritage image provides a much better "in hand look". IMO, True View seldom looks like the coin in hand. That said, the TV looks nice. Just not a good representation of the in hand look.

oih82w8

Looks pretty dad-gum nice to me! Waaaay out of my reach.

ToughCOINS

Looks great to me. The problem is that in-hand inspection permits you to examine a coin from an infinite number of perspectives, whereas a single pair of still shots are incredibly limiting, no matter how good they are.

In photos, coins with blazing luster can appear lifeless and others with vibrant toning can appear dull and uninteresting.

Experience permits one to better connect the real look of the coin to the limited information one sees in 2D images, especially those taken in unfavorable conditions.

Unfortunately, experience takes a lot of time, and a fair number of mistakes.