Thoughts on the surfaces of this Morgan?
wrighty
Posts: 840 ✭✭✭✭
Do they look original or smoothed?
0
wrighty
Posts: 840 ✭✭✭✭
Comments
I'm gonna vote smoothed.
If the coin’s been smoothed, I can’t tell from the images. But I’m sure there are many coins which have been smoothed, yet their images wouldn’t necessarily show it.
Edited to add: If the original post didn’t make reference to “smoothed”, I doubt anyone would suggest that the coin had suffered from that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thumb prints behind her head? Nice Strike! surface looks like an "old" time dip that is now a little dull but no tail tell rings around the stars. Interesting though "Thanks for sharing"
It’s going to be hard to tell. The first thing that pops to mind is whether that is a good representation of the coin or not. The very flat lighting can be very deceptive for some things while very contrasty lighting can be deceptive for other things.
My friend sent me the image this morning and asked me if I thought the coin looked original as he has an opportunity to purchase it. Obviously hard to tell from pictures but wanted some opinions.
The coin could easily be other than original, but not smoothed.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Is it already slabbed by a major TPG? If not, why not?
It is raw
Here is one in a PCI (gold) holder MS-65....it has been smoothed/altered.
The long scratch from the jaw to the eye is on the holder.
Notice how there is no pushed up metal on the hits.
Sorry about all the scratches on the slab
Edited to add: A photo of the holder
(not a red tag)
Doesn't look original to me. I'd vote secondary or tertiary toning. Surfaces look a tad washed out.
From what I can see it don't look right to me ... as mentioned it could be the lighting when the photo was taken.
It does not look 'smoothed' to me... the ding on the 8 and irregularities on some of the letters make me think original (though maybe dipped) surfaces....This based on a picture...in hand, one might detect other things. Cheers, RickO
As mentioned it may be lighting or the photo. Have your friend focus on the cheek area in red the rest of the coin looks good. If you notice you can see a thread like impression & a pimple on the jaw that clearly was not smoothed, there also appears to be pushed up metal on the ding below the eye. IF it is smoothed they took great care to only improve a small area.
Where was the dollar minted? Luster, reflectivity, and color vary between mints.
From the image, the luster looks subdued and the surfaces look clean which may all be the result of the coin being washed out due to poor lighting (intentionally or otherwise). I can't tell if the coin has been smoothed from the image, however.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
The surfaces look altered somewhat...
My YouTube Channel
Why ask about smoothing, in particular, as opposed to dipping, cleaning or other types of alteration?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's a 1878 no mint mark. He said the fields look so clean with no hits, or marks he was concerned more about smoothing than anything else. that is the only picture he sent and I haven't spoken to him outside of his initial email with the picture asking my thoughts. Without the coin in hand I know its extremely hard to to judge but appreciate all the feedback so far. My biggest issue was the subdued color that seemed off but again it could just be the lighting. Thank you everyone for your informed thoughts and opinions.
Doesn't look original to me by the photo given. Washed out, thumbprint... suspect dipped and getting some secondary toning. I would probably pass unless priced very reasonable.
Just got told that the image was sent to him last night from a "vest pocket" dealer who he has bought a couple of other coins from in the past with no issues but he wasn't sold on this one by the picture. I'll see if he can get a better shot of it and what the reverse looks like.
Looks like a Vam 38 7/8 5tf
I agree and responded that it was more of a red flag for me but that's just my personal opinion. I had no idea he was working with a VP that he met a few years ago but sounds like they have not done alot of business.
I have been trying to find photos of one I had about 15 years ago, it was a 1878 7/8 tf in DMPL. The coin looked like it was a solid MS-64 DMPL before someone tried to improve the cheek area to make it a 65. (Huge money jump from 64 to 65) They did a very good job and it made it past one of the other grading services at a 65 DMPL. I bought it in the holder and thought about cracking it out but ended up selling it to a collector with full disclosure as a problem coin for about 20% of 64 DMPL money. He was very happy to get it and still has it as far as I know. It was a very nice looking coin! I had it for about 2 or 3 years trying to decide what to do with it or if I just wanted to keep it. If I find the photos I will post them but at this point I am not holding out much hope.
I understand what you're getting at and I think something is off with the appearance of the surfaces. The coin may be unsmoothed if that’s a word but the photo may be altered to flatten things out a bit. I’m guessing its the photo. What the alteration may be hiding is another thing.
Even that "guarantee" is only as good as the VPD. Did that once in my past and the seller refused to honor the return. What they did was wait a week without answering any of my emails to return the coin. Then they claimed I exceeded their 5 day return priv. Unless in writing, and through a PNG dealer or something, there's not much enforcement behind a guarantee. And the reason I wouldn't mail the coin back w/o direct confirmation...is that decades earlier I did that on a Coin World Mail Bid sale....and the dealer kept my money and the returned coins. I got nothing. And could have had at least 65% of what I had paid for.