Home› U.S. Coin Forum
Options

1889-S Morgan... toning question.

I'm unsure of what to make of this toning.
If the obverse looked like the reverse, I'd say dip residue... but I'm not sure.

So... natural or not?

Comments

  • Options
    goldengolden Posts: 10,552 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not a fan.

  • Options
    bolivarshagnastybolivarshagnasty Posts: 7,359 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The pull away below the date would be indicative of a naturally toned Morgan. That being said, it's not very pleasing to the eye. I think that will limit the value.

  • Options
    KellenCoinKellenCoin Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Either way, not nice toning.

    Fan of the Oxford Comma
    CCAC Representative of the General Public
    2021 Young Numismatist of the Year

  • Options
    CascadeChrisCascadeChris Posts: 2,529 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It appears market acceptable from a technical standpoint and should straight grade but the eye appeal isn't there on this one. I'd name it "Nightmare" as it seems to fit both in the look and the eye appeal lol

    The more you VAM..
  • Options
    MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Reverse - Dusk on Halloween

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • Options
    roadrunnerroadrunner Posts: 28,374 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 9, 2017 8:29PM

    Pull-away toning is nice to have. But by itself is not proof of complete originality. Some doctors add their toning over originally toned coins to hide other defects. I don't find this toning ugly. "Interesting" would fit better. If it's dip residue there would sure have been a lot of the chemical left on. Looks more like a coin that was dipped and possibly placed in an accelerated toning environment. And that could even mean just a plain old coin envelope (or tissue paper) which speeds the air only process up.

    Barbarous Relic No More, LSCC -GoldSeek--shadow stats--SafeHaven--321gold
  • Options
    3keepSECRETif2rDEAD3keepSECRETif2rDEAD Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice photo!

  • Options
    mannie graymannie gray Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm not a fan.
    Some areas of the coin look "good", while other areas look like they've been Cloroxed, and retoned over.

  • Options
    sparky64sparky64 Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2017 6:36AM

    I recently posted a 1900 Morgan that was somewhat similar to this although I think mine has better eye appeal. IMHO.

    TDN called the toning "muddy" and I think that's a good way to put it.

    Edit: It was recently graded MS62.

    "If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"

    My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress

  • Options
    rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not a coin I would consider... appears to have residues on the obverse, then likely placed in an envelope or drawer for an extended stay.... If I were to name it, it would be 'Old Dried Mustard Stain'....Cheers, RickO

  • Options
    gripgrip Posts: 9,962 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2017 9:34AM

    The light toning around the date has no depth
    to it.Looks as if it's laying on top of the coin...Strange.
    almost like a water color.

  • Options
    chumleychumley Posts: 2,305 ✭✭✭✭

    previously stored in the grape jelly jar?

  • Options
    COCollectorCOCollector Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Are you buying or selling?

    Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, jacrispies, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.

  • Options
    cnncoinscnncoins Posts: 414 ✭✭✭✭

    IMO the toning is natural. Over the years I've seen many coins exhibit this pattern, especially those stored in paper/manilla envelopes. I've seen thousands of Morgans stored this way, and because the "S" mints usually have great luster, the blast still comes through the toning (as with this 89-S) and the color is usually more vibrant. This is different than "P" and "O" mints, which usually have a more subdued tone from this type of storage, which could be due to the softer luster as well as the chemical reactions from the envelopes.
    BTW, I'm in RR's camp as far as the look, but he coins really looks 65 or better from the picture.

  • Options
    TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,969 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Naturally unattractive (to me).

  • Options
    CelinaCoinCelinaCoin Posts: 84 ✭
    edited February 11, 2017 2:38PM

    Bought this coin from a B&M back of 60.
    It'll sit in my "to be slabbed" box for a while before I finally send it in...

    And thanks for all the comments.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file