While the childish insults make for a funny read, the real facts of how many MS-68 Morgans are out there are posted below. And I don't want to hear the foolishness that most of them have not been graded. They are just simply not out there. Out of 3 million plus uncirculated Morgans graded, a little over 600 have made MS-68 or higher.
You don't want to hear the foolishness because they're just not out there.
I've been put in my place.
While forty years of being out of touch with reality can bring great wealth and high political office when others buy into your delusions, they count por nada in the grading room and the bourse floor.
Reflect, if you will, on the irony of you quoting grading statistics to the people who make the coins.
And of playing Coin Uno with the people who illustrated and published the deck.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@Wabbit2313 said:
On the 1893-S MS-67 Morgan, I think the grade is generous by today's standards. There are plenty of whacks hiding under that toning.
You're right. This is an MS65 by PCGS's own standards. Even substituting eye appeal (ugg) for the luster damage, this still would only reach MS65 if 99.9% of y'all submitted it. The luster on the cheek, most of the hair and left field is gone completely. What luster remains is heavily toned, which explains why the dark toning is only in the recessed crevices and NEVER on the hair, the cheek, or the lettering or the rim. In fact as we all know, coins are generally held finger and thumb which explains why the color of the rim and the color of the cheek are identical . I've seen this pattern a thousand times and it generally means the toning (and luster) were rubbed off by an old time collector's thumb.
This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of PCGS grading standards for this series for at least the last decade. We're not in 1986 anymore. I also don't know how we can "prove" anything about luster from a 2D image. We can speculate or infer, but we must be open to the very real possibility that photos do not portray everything accurately.
@keets said: which really had to be about flawless to the unaided eye
that's an "armchair quarterback" comment if I ever heard one. some members just love to sit here and criticize a coin picture and posit a superior point of view based on a 20 year memory. go hold the coin in your sweaty hand, try to remember what those flawless 20 years ago coins looked like and please give us a report.
the catty, back biting criticisms around here are really getting old. I don't doubt members are experienced and have spent time in the trenches over the years, but some of us need to back off some with the self-righteous posture that we know more about grading, more about a series, more about, well, you get the picture.....................
The first 1881-S MS68 that ZCoins posted has two major hits above the eagle's head that are far too large to be an artifact IMHO. That is RR's point, and I think he is correct. A coin graded MS68 should be near flawless if not flawless. If there are hits that can be easily measured with a ruler, it is too much IMHO.
I've seen this pattern a thousand times and it generally means the toning (and luster) were rubbed off by an old time collector's thumb.
If the luster were rubbed off, why does this 1893-s Morgan still have a full cartwheel effect? I held the coin. And note that it was probably plucked from the SF Mint on day one and put into someone's cabinet....like a John Clapp type person. It ended up with Vermeulle. Where did it get all the "rubbing" and friction from that removed the luster that you claim? Did Vermeulle rub it down? Toning doesn't usually destroy luster except in the most advanced stages. You've brought your "destroyed" luster argument from toned commems into toned type coins and dollars. It didn't work before, so why now?
The only toned, gem slabbed MS type coin I can recalling being shocked by was a slabbed MS66 Eliasberg seated quarter. The reverse toning on one quadrant was so thick and dark that no luster or nearly none, radiated through it. I considered that Environmentally Damage. When I pointed that out to the selling dealer who was asking over $40K for the coin, they though I was nuts.....lol. It was the only time I can recall seeing a major league coin with truly "destroyed" luster....though the other 7/8 of that coin was just wonderful and fitting of the 66 grade. I would love to know if that coin was ever CAC'd. In 1988 I bought a raw, superb gem 1893 Barber quarter that was put away at time of issue and wrapped in tissue paper. It turned a very deep blue/purple after approx 100 yrs. The original family still owned it. Despite that dark toning, the luster radiated quite clearly and cleanly all around the coin. It graded MS66 in 1988.
I've purposely held gem mint state coins from circulation and rubbed them on purpose for a considerable amount of time....probably equal to years of handling by a "collector." Sometimes put in my pockets. I couldn't put a dent in the luster no matter how hard or long I tried. How often does a "collector" pull out their gem 1893-s Morgan dollar and rub their thumbs all over it? Might have to do that every day for years to make a dent. Even as a kid, I doubt I fingered my coins more than a few dozen times per year.
This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of PCGS grading standards for this series for at least the last decade. We're not in 1986 anymore. I also don't know how we can "prove" anything about luster from a 2D image. We can speculate or infer, but we must be open to the very real possibility that photos do not portray everything accurately.
It even sounds insane. "PGCS grading standards for this series for at least the last decade." Correct me if I'm wrong, but although everyone knows grading standards have slipped, "Impaired luster cannot exceed MS64" doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation right?
Anyway I can indeed tell a HUGE amount about luster from a photograph. So can most people. I say without reservation based on decades of experience THERE IS NO LUSTER LEFT ON THE CHEEK, MOST OF THE HAIR, AND THE LOWER LEFT FIELD. It is not possible to photograph a cartwheel effect in this area. A microscopic view of this area will NOT show parallel flow lines. They will show pitting consistent with oxidation.
I'm sorry if you don't agree with me so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know how this coin was made. I know why there's dark toning ONLY in the recessed areas while all the high areas are grey. This is not a mystery. This is a pretty standard pattern.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
If the luster were rubbed off, why does this 1893-s Morgan still have a full cartwheel effect?
It doesn't.
@roadrunner said:
And note that it was probably plucked from the SF Mint on day one and put into someone's cabinet....like a John Clapp type person.
Not possible. Luster doesn't evaporate. There is no conceivable way a coin could be minted with that much pressure and result in a dull surface like that.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Where did it get all the "rubbing" and friction from that removed the luster that you claim? Did Vermeulle rub it down? Toning doesn't usually destroy luster except in the most advanced stages. You've brought your "destroyed" luster argument from toned commems into toned type coins and dollars. It didn't work before, so why now?
When the coin leaves the die, unless it is weakly struck, there is no favoritism between the low and high areas of the coin. I have an explanation for why all the lettering and high parts of the coin are gunboat grey while most of the recessed areas of the coin have color and luster.
I'm not sure what you mean by "work". I sold one of the only truly brilliant Spanish Trail commems on Ebay recently and it broke all the recent records. Apparently all I'm doing is accurately describing market preference.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I'm going to demonstrate what a coin looks like with all the luster intact over the entire surface and what a coin looks like when only a hint of luster is left intact under the toning. I'll use a Columbian in both cases.
This is an MS67 Columbian commemorative half dollar with most of the luster gone. The only luster remaining is the "ER" in America and the "OL" in Columbian. There MIGHT be a bit of luster left in the deep fields. The fact these bright spots are opposite is why they call it cartwheel. It's not unusual for the only remaining luster on silver coins to be under the toned/recessed areas. It's because the luster was rubbed off and everywhere else on the coin it is missing:
This coin is sold to some lucky collector who now owns a coin with 100% intact luster. Cartwheel effect can easily be seen across the entire coin. There's a visible sheen that changes hot and cold areas as the coin is turned. It's only a lowly MS65 (for some reason) but it's not damaged and IMO a far higher grade.
@Wabbit2313 said:
On the 1893-S MS-67 Morgan, I think the grade is generous by today's standards. There are plenty of whacks hiding under that toning.
-
-
-
-
So right, So true, Not gem. Doo doo
Haiku for an idiot.
Too many syllables but just as true.
Beware the auto-coprophagic trolls
who grade with an abacus, not eyes or souls.
People so truly and deeply committed to ignorance, blindness and stupidity encourage me to throw more chlorine in the gene pool.
I could shoot someone (like that) in broad daylight in the middle of 5th Avenue and not be convicted.
But if I were running for President (of ANA), that might not be the central plank in my platform
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@Iwog said:
I'm going to demonstrate what a coin looks like with all the luster intact over the entire surface and what a coin looks like when only a hint of luster is left intact under the toning. I'll use a Columbian in both cases.
This is an MS67 Columbian commemorative half dollar with most of the luster gone. The only luster remaining is the "ER" in America and the "OL" in Columbian. There MIGHT be a bit of luster left in the deep fields. The fact these bright spots are opposite is why they call it cartwheel. It's not unusual for the only remaining luster on silver coins to be under the toned/recessed areas. It's because the luster was rubbed off and everywhere else on the coin it is missing:
This coin is sold to some lucky collector who now owns a coin with 100% intact luster. Cartwheel effect can easily be seen across the entire coin. There's a visible sheen that changes hot and cold areas as the coin is turned. It's only a lowly MS65 (for some reason) but it's not damaged and IMO a far higher grade.
I'll add one thing. If you dip the MS67, it's body bagged. Forever. If you dip my coin, it will still grade MS65 and possibly MS66. Why?
This is a terrible comparison. The first video was not shot right to show the luster. If they held the coin to the light like yours, it would be completely different.
This is a terrible comparison. The first video was not shot right to show the luster. If they held the coin to the light like yours, it would be completely different.
I'm sorry but you're incorrect. Here's another video shot exactly the same way showing ample luster and a good cartwheel. Furthermore you can easily see the bust get brighter, then darker as the coin rotates. Even in low resolution, everyone can tell the luster crosses the entire coin.
Iwog .. A brave effort and a strong start. You must feel the frustration of Galileo muttering "But it moves" .
if your thesis is accurate, decades of research will need to be re-evaluated. Students of the minting process such as Fred Weinberg will spend endless nights tossing and turning because the world is not flat.
In the search for truth, you remind me of Thomas Edison, who made a successful light bulb after 800+ false steps. Since even a dim bulb casts some light, your work, which contravenes conventional wisdom, could initiate a quantum leap into this newly discovered abyss of ignorance.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis?
That Aristotle! What a schmuck
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
If you put a piece of paper over a blazing white, gem Spanish trail, you can't see that luster any more. But, is it still there? Some would suggest the luster is now gone. I recall Ed Milas of Rarcoa purchasing a pile of early gem silver mint sets from the early 1850's back around the 1988 ANA show. The seated coins were so thick in blue/purple/blackish toning that they had to be dipped out. Many or most came out fine....receiving strong grades from PCGS in the MS65-67 range.
This is a terrible comparison. The first video was not shot right to show the luster. If they held the coin to the light like yours, it would be completely different.
I'm sorry but you're incorrect. Here's another video shot exactly the same way showing ample luster and a good cartwheel. Furthermore you can easily see the bust get brighter, then darker as the coin rotates. Even in low resolution, everyone can tell the luster crosses the entire coin.
My argument still stands that that was a bad comparison. The video you just posted would have been a good comparison to do (but the luster still looks terrible the way they shot it).
@roadrunner said:
If you put a piece of paper over a blazing white, gem Spanish trail, you can't see that luster any more. But, is it still there? Some would suggest the luster is now gone. Recall Ed Milas purchasing a pile of early gem silver mint sets from the early 1850's back around 1988. The seated coins were so thick in blue/purple/blackish that they had to be dipped out. Many or most came out fine....receiving strong grades from PCGS in the MS65-67 range.
That's fine but that's not the issue with this coin.
I'm just going to say this because it's something that we all know to be true. If you dip a brilliant coin with intact luster, it's fine and PCGS will grade it. If you dip that MS67 Morgan, it will forever be returned in a body bag. The reason is because a significant amount of luster has been destroyed and ironically it would come back as overdipped.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
worked in a Acrylic cell cast company making F-15 shields and we tried automating inspection pre stretch. Needless to say the machine started to reject almost 100% of the product. Some thing you just have to leave up to the manual inspection because if you cant see it who cares. If a tree falls and your not around, did it make a sound? Just saying.
In looking at the 1879-s through 1882-s Morgans, these 4 dates account for a substantial portion of the MS68 and MS68 + slabbed population at PCGS and I suspect that would be the case at NGC. These four dates are held to a high standard mainly because they are the highest quality dates for the Morgan series. All the talk of grading standards and what is really a 68 or a 67 + seems laughable considering the surviving population clearly illustrates these are just not rare nor can they even be considered condition rarities.
Yes they are wonderful to look at ... But that's about where it begins and ends.
Carry on... And try and keep the discussion in perspective. And that should be just enough to end this even though some posters made a gallant effort to make the read entertaining.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I'm just going to say this because it's something that we all know to be true. If you dip a brilliant coin with intact luster, it's fine and PCGS will grade it. If you dip that MS67 Morgan, it will forever be returned in a body bag. The reason is because a significant amount of luster has been destroyed and ironically it would come back as overdipped.
There is no way to know that for sure. I have seen deeply crusted toned coins that I thought would show impaired luster after a dip that came out fine after a light dip. The toning on the 1893-S MS67 Morgan does not look so thick and dark as to have muted the luster to me.
This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of PCGS grading standards for this series for at least the last decade. We're not in 1986 anymore. I also don't know how we can "prove" anything about luster from a 2D image. We can speculate or infer, but we must be open to the very real possibility that photos do not portray everything accurately.
It even sounds insane. "PGCS grading standards for this series for at least the last decade." Correct me if I'm wrong, but although everyone knows grading standards have slipped, "Impaired luster cannot exceed MS64" doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation right?
Anyway I can indeed tell a HUGE amount about luster from a photograph. So can most people. I say without reservation based on decades of experience THERE IS NO LUSTER LEFT ON THE CHEEK, MOST OF THE HAIR, AND THE LOWER LEFT FIELD. It is not possible to photograph a cartwheel effect in this area. A microscopic view of this area will NOT show parallel flow lines. They will show pitting consistent with oxidation.
I'm sorry if you don't agree with me so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know how this coin was made. I know why there's dark toning ONLY in the recessed areas while all the high areas are grey. This is not a mystery. This is a pretty standard pattern.
Does the coin still have a full cartwheel when rotated in hand that is not heavily muted? If so, most would not call it impaired. Moreover, not every Morgan has brilliant, flashy luster to the degree that the 1879-1882 San Francisco minted pieces do. Some dates come with satin luster. I have never seen an 1893-S with bright, flashy luster.
As for making judgments about luster from a 2D picture, I am glad that you are talented enough to be able to definitively and conclusively discern the amount of luster by rotating your iPad in hand. I'm sure we all wish we had that skill.
@cameonut2011 said:
Does the coin still have a full cartwheel when rotated in hand that is not heavily muted?
>
Nope, it does not.
@cameonut2011 said:
Some dates come with satin luster. I have never seen an 1893-S with bright, flashy luster.
This is what satin luster actually looks like. For some reason lots of people confuse satin luster with a coin full of oxidized pits that don't reflect light.
While the childish insults make for a funny read, the real facts of how many MS-68 Morgans are out there are posted below.
This is PCGS only. You are neglecting old ANACS and NGC coins that have not crossed (and not all of them are overgraded by PCGS standards) in addition to raw coins. I still think true MS68 quality coins make up a small percentage of the total population, but your numbers do not tell the whole story either.
@thebigeng said:
Hi folks! could someone sum up what we have learned here? Also A question for the flat earthers.....How thick is the earth if it is flat?
Thin crust, thick crust, Sicilian or Chicago?
That's complicated, Something like that is likely going on in some alternative Universe or another, but not a fruitful path for exploration in three dimensions.
Watchers of Big Bang Theory and the kids on "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader" know it's an oblate spheroid.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Comments
While the childish insults make for a funny read, the real facts of how many MS-68 Morgans are out there are posted below. And I don't want to hear the foolishness that most of them have not been graded. They are just simply not out there. Out of 3 million plus uncirculated Morgans graded, a little over 600 have made MS-68 or higher.
-
for comparison NGC has graded a remarkably similar number of Morgan's overall, with a greater % getting the 68 grade.
eBay ID-bruceshort978
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager.
That's all I wrote. But I may have hired a Russian to hack myself.
You don't want to hear the foolishness because they're just not out there.
I've been put in my place.
While forty years of being out of touch with reality can bring great wealth and high political office when others buy into your delusions, they count por nada in the grading room and the bourse floor.
Reflect, if you will, on the irony of you quoting grading statistics to the people who make the coins.
And of playing Coin Uno with the people who illustrated and published the deck.
This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of PCGS grading standards for this series for at least the last decade. We're not in 1986 anymore. I also don't know how we can "prove" anything about luster from a 2D image. We can speculate or infer, but we must be open to the very real possibility that photos do not portray everything accurately.
The first 1881-S MS68 that ZCoins posted has two major hits above the eagle's head that are far too large to be an artifact IMHO. That is RR's point, and I think he is correct. A coin graded MS68 should be near flawless if not flawless. If there are hits that can be easily measured with a ruler, it is too much IMHO.
Edited to add image
I've seen this pattern a thousand times and it generally means the toning (and luster) were rubbed off by an old time collector's thumb.
If the luster were rubbed off, why does this 1893-s Morgan still have a full cartwheel effect? I held the coin. And note that it was probably plucked from the SF Mint on day one and put into someone's cabinet....like a John Clapp type person. It ended up with Vermeulle. Where did it get all the "rubbing" and friction from that removed the luster that you claim? Did Vermeulle rub it down? Toning doesn't usually destroy luster except in the most advanced stages. You've brought your "destroyed" luster argument from toned commems into toned type coins and dollars. It didn't work before, so why now?
The only toned, gem slabbed MS type coin I can recalling being shocked by was a slabbed MS66 Eliasberg seated quarter. The reverse toning on one quadrant was so thick and dark that no luster or nearly none, radiated through it. I considered that Environmentally Damage. When I pointed that out to the selling dealer who was asking over $40K for the coin, they though I was nuts.....lol. It was the only time I can recall seeing a major league coin with truly "destroyed" luster....though the other 7/8 of that coin was just wonderful and fitting of the 66 grade. I would love to know if that coin was ever CAC'd. In 1988 I bought a raw, superb gem 1893 Barber quarter that was put away at time of issue and wrapped in tissue paper. It turned a very deep blue/purple after approx 100 yrs. The original family still owned it. Despite that dark toning, the luster radiated quite clearly and cleanly all around the coin. It graded MS66 in 1988.
I've purposely held gem mint state coins from circulation and rubbed them on purpose for a considerable amount of time....probably equal to years of handling by a "collector." Sometimes put in my pockets. I couldn't put a dent in the luster no matter how hard or long I tried. How often does a "collector" pull out their gem 1893-s Morgan dollar and rub their thumbs all over it? Might have to do that every day for years to make a dent. Even as a kid, I doubt I fingered my coins more than a few dozen times per year.
It even sounds insane. "PGCS grading standards for this series for at least the last decade." Correct me if I'm wrong, but although everyone knows grading standards have slipped, "Impaired luster cannot exceed MS64" doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation right?
Anyway I can indeed tell a HUGE amount about luster from a photograph. So can most people. I say without reservation based on decades of experience THERE IS NO LUSTER LEFT ON THE CHEEK, MOST OF THE HAIR, AND THE LOWER LEFT FIELD. It is not possible to photograph a cartwheel effect in this area. A microscopic view of this area will NOT show parallel flow lines. They will show pitting consistent with oxidation.
I'm sorry if you don't agree with me so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know how this coin was made. I know why there's dark toning ONLY in the recessed areas while all the high areas are grey. This is not a mystery. This is a pretty standard pattern.
It doesn't.
Not possible. Luster doesn't evaporate. There is no conceivable way a coin could be minted with that much pressure and result in a dull surface like that.
When the coin leaves the die, unless it is weakly struck, there is no favoritism between the low and high areas of the coin. I have an explanation for why all the lettering and high parts of the coin are gunboat grey while most of the recessed areas of the coin have color and luster.
Do you?
I'm not sure what you mean by "work". I sold one of the only truly brilliant Spanish Trail commems on Ebay recently and it broke all the recent records. Apparently all I'm doing is accurately describing market preference.
I'm going to demonstrate what a coin looks like with all the luster intact over the entire surface and what a coin looks like when only a hint of luster is left intact under the toning. I'll use a Columbian in both cases.
This is an MS67 Columbian commemorative half dollar with most of the luster gone. The only luster remaining is the "ER" in America and the "OL" in Columbian. There MIGHT be a bit of luster left in the deep fields. The fact these bright spots are opposite is why they call it cartwheel. It's not unusual for the only remaining luster on silver coins to be under the toned/recessed areas. It's because the luster was rubbed off and everywhere else on the coin it is missing:
This coin is sold to some lucky collector who now owns a coin with 100% intact luster. Cartwheel effect can easily be seen across the entire coin. There's a visible sheen that changes hot and cold areas as the coin is turned. It's only a lowly MS65 (for some reason) but it's not damaged and IMO a far higher grade.
I'll add one thing. If you dip the MS67, it's body bagged. Forever. If you dip my coin, it will still grade MS65 and possibly MS66. Why?
So right, So true, Not gem. Doo doo
Haiku for an idiot.
Too many syllables but just as true.
Beware the auto-coprophagic trolls
who grade with an abacus, not eyes or souls.
People so truly and deeply committed to ignorance, blindness and stupidity encourage me to throw more chlorine in the gene pool.
I could shoot someone (like that) in broad daylight in the middle of 5th Avenue and not be convicted.
But if I were running for President (of ANA), that might not be the central plank in my platform
This is a terrible comparison. The first video was not shot right to show the luster. If they held the coin to the light like yours, it would be completely different.
I'm sorry but you're incorrect. Here's another video shot exactly the same way showing ample luster and a good cartwheel. Furthermore you can easily see the bust get brighter, then darker as the coin rotates. Even in low resolution, everyone can tell the luster crosses the entire coin.
Iwog .. A brave effort and a strong start. You must feel the frustration of Galileo muttering "But it moves" .
if your thesis is accurate, decades of research will need to be re-evaluated. Students of the minting process such as Fred Weinberg will spend endless nights tossing and turning because the world is not flat.
In the search for truth, you remind me of Thomas Edison, who made a successful light bulb after 800+ false steps. Since even a dim bulb casts some light, your work, which contravenes conventional wisdom, could initiate a quantum leap into this newly discovered abyss of ignorance.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis?
That Aristotle! What a schmuck
If you put a piece of paper over a blazing white, gem Spanish trail, you can't see that luster any more. But, is it still there? Some would suggest the luster is now gone. I recall Ed Milas of Rarcoa purchasing a pile of early gem silver mint sets from the early 1850's back around the 1988 ANA show. The seated coins were so thick in blue/purple/blackish toning that they had to be dipped out. Many or most came out fine....receiving strong grades from PCGS in the MS65-67 range.
My argument still stands that that was a bad comparison. The video you just posted would have been a good comparison to do (but the luster still looks terrible the way they shot it).
Thread of the year ! Thank you ColonelJessup. They can't handle the truth !
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
For every 4800 uncirculated Morgans graded, only one goes MS-68 or higher.
Please continue the name calling. That is usually the only option available when arrogance blinds one to facts.
That's fine but that's not the issue with this coin.
I'm just going to say this because it's something that we all know to be true. If you dip a brilliant coin with intact luster, it's fine and PCGS will grade it. If you dip that MS67 Morgan, it will forever be returned in a body bag. The reason is because a significant amount of luster has been destroyed and ironically it would come back as overdipped.
all this because people don't agree with assigned grades.
Per Samuel Langhorne Clemens, there are three kinds of lies. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics".
51 disagrees speak for themselves, but they're just another statistic.
Hi folks! could someone sum up what we have learned here? Also A question for the flat earthers.....How thick is the earth if it is flat?
worked in a Acrylic cell cast company making F-15 shields and we tried automating inspection pre stretch. Needless to say the machine started to reject almost 100% of the product. Some thing you just have to leave up to the manual inspection because if you cant see it who cares. If a tree falls and your not around, did it make a sound? Just saying.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
I vote with my check book......... quietly
Some things cannot be said.
In looking at the 1879-s through 1882-s Morgans, these 4 dates account for a substantial portion of the MS68 and MS68 + slabbed population at PCGS and I suspect that would be the case at NGC. These four dates are held to a high standard mainly because they are the highest quality dates for the Morgan series. All the talk of grading standards and what is really a 68 or a 67 + seems laughable considering the surviving population clearly illustrates these are just not rare nor can they even be considered condition rarities.
Yes they are wonderful to look at ... But that's about where it begins and ends.
Carry on... And try and keep the discussion in perspective. And that should be just enough to end this even though some posters made a gallant effort to make the read entertaining.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There is no way to know that for sure. I have seen deeply crusted toned coins that I thought would show impaired luster after a dip that came out fine after a light dip. The toning on the 1893-S MS67 Morgan does not look so thick and dark as to have muted the luster to me.
Does the coin still have a full cartwheel when rotated in hand that is not heavily muted? If so, most would not call it impaired. Moreover, not every Morgan has brilliant, flashy luster to the degree that the 1879-1882 San Francisco minted pieces do. Some dates come with satin luster. I have never seen an 1893-S with bright, flashy luster.
As for making judgments about luster from a 2D picture, I am glad that you are talented enough to be able to definitively and conclusively discern the amount of luster by rotating your iPad in hand. I'm sure we all wish we had that skill.
Nothing!
>
Nope, it does not.
This is what satin luster actually looks like. For some reason lots of people confuse satin luster with a coin full of oxidized pits that don't reflect light.
This is PCGS only. You are neglecting old ANACS and NGC coins that have not crossed (and not all of them are overgraded by PCGS standards) in addition to raw coins. I still think true MS68 quality coins make up a small percentage of the total population, but your numbers do not tell the whole story either.
+1
Thin crust, thick crust, Sicilian or Chicago?
That's complicated, Something like that is likely going on in some alternative Universe or another, but not a fruitful path for exploration in three dimensions.
Watchers of Big Bang Theory and the kids on "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader" know it's an oblate spheroid.
I learned one thing in this thread....the meaning of auto-coprophagic. I had to look it up though.