I've never seen a proof Morgan without full hair details before

commoncents05 · September 18, 2007 8:50AM

But, it's slabbed.

Linky.

That really sucks for whoever is buying that POS.

-Paul

Coxe · September 18, 2007 9:06AM

I would MUCH rather have a prooflike than a proof of that date. It, alas, is neither though. It was quite obviously whizzed.

TwoSides2aCoin · September 18, 2007 9:22AM

As I read this ad from one of the seller's previous transactions, 1948 Franklin Half Certified MS67FBL Super Gem

My first thought was "which half" and "by whom" ?

Then I remembered this email :

I knew it was going to be a bad day when I hit the back of a car today. The driver got out and I got out and he was a dwarf.
He looked up at me and said "I'm not HAPPY"...
I said " Well which one are you ? ". Then the fight started.

grabba · September 18, 2007 9:30AM

<< 

I knew it was going to be a bad day when I hit the back of a car today. The driver got out and I got out and he was a dwarf.
He looked up at me and said "I'm not HAPPY"...
I said " Well which one are you ? ". Then the fight started. >>

DennisH · September 18, 2007 9:30AM

If you want to see Morgans with no hair detail over the ear, look at 1880-CCs (R79) and 1893-CCs. Lots of the O-mints are pretty sad too.

DorkGirl · September 18, 2007 9:42AM

<< I would MUCH rather have a prooflike than a proof of that date. It, alas, is neither though. It was quite obviously whizzed. >>

And a rookie at whizzing to boot. Check out the bottom of Liberty's neck....

DJCoinz · September 18, 2007 9:44AM

The obverse almost looks fake.

MasterGuns · September 18, 2007 10:16AM

who or what is ANI?

MasterGuns · September 18, 2007 10:21AM

this guy cant keep it straight Morgan or Washington Quarter

anablep · September 18, 2007 10:36AM

What a waste of a nice date Morgan...

I wish people would stop trying to turn coins into something they are not.

Wolf359 · September 18, 2007 10:48AM

To quote from Wayne Millers book:

"The year 1888 marks the advent of one of the most peculiar items in the Morgan dollar series, that of the flat struck proof. A considerable percentage of all Morgan proofs struck in the years 1888-1889 and 1891-1893 evidence no high-point detail on either obverse or reverse. No one has yet been able to explain...."

ccmorgan · September 18, 2007 10:53AM

ANI grading? Is that a sister company of SGS? Looks like the brillo pad hit it hard too. No way a proof!!!!

roadrunner · September 18, 2007 10:53AM

Any number of proofs in many series do not come fully struck. Morgan dollars are no exception. Other 19th century series like seated material (all denominations but moreso the halves and dollars) do not always come fully struck as proofs. Some are downright poor where large portions of the design are flattish.

roadrunner

Coxe · September 18, 2007 11:03AM

<< To quote from Wayne Millers book:

"The year 1888 marks the advent of one of the most peculiar items in the Morgan dollar series, that of the flat struck proof. A considerable percentage of all Morgan proofs struck in the years 1888-1889 and 1891-1893 evidence no high-point detail on either obverse or reverse. No one has yet been able to explain...." >>

On at least a few of those years, and perhaps all, I am not so sure it was central strike at issue as much as the hubbing of the master dies. I'll have to look over my stuff to see if there were any issues with available presses or personnel during the period though.

SUMORADA · September 18, 2007 11:27AM

is this what we are talking about?

GoldenEyeNumismatics · September 18, 2007 11:58AM

OUCH!

Bikingnut · September 18, 2007 12:08PM

Someone's going to be awfully dissappointed. What happened to only PCGS, NGC, and ANACS slabs on ebay?

Dennis

Coxe · September 18, 2007 2:26PM

<< Someone's going to be awfully dissappointed. What happened to only PCGS, NGC, and ANACS slabs on ebay?

Dennis >>

The others are allowed, just restricted in what they can say about them, particularly in the title. And then the enforcement is not there, so there are no teeth yet. It is a step in the right direction even if I (and many others) don't agree with everything they are doing.

lordmarcovan · September 18, 2007 4:12PM

Poor fool who bought that deserves what he got, I'm afraid.

But I do weep for him, flushing 3 grand down the crapper like that.

Coxe · September 19, 2007 2:49AM

Gee, it actually sold. Look at the list of numismatic celebrities he has been buying from in his feedback. So many fools, and so much of their money yet to part from them.

coinsomniac · September 19, 2007 2:55AM

The 1893 Morgan proof is actually known for a weak strike, particularly evident on the hair above the ear. A few years ago I sold a PCGS PR66 DCAM ay Heritage which had the same softness. You can still look it up on their auction archives. It sold in Jan 2005. Text

19Lyds · September 19, 2007 4:38AM

<< I knew it was going to be a bad day when I hit the back of a car today. The driver got out and I got out and he was a dwarf.
He looked up at me and said "I'm not HAPPY"...
I said " Well which one are you ? ". Then the fight started. >>

morganbarber · September 19, 2007 4:59AM

Ratings mutually withdrawn: 6

etexmike · September 19, 2007 5:43AM

I feel bad for the person that bought that Morgan.

This is a Morgan that I sold thru Heritage (Heritage pic) back in April 2006. It was part of a six piece 1893 proof set that I had put together.

It was only graded at 63 Cameo (by NGC & PCGS). My 63 Cam looked better than that 67 DCAM piece of junk.

-------------

etexmike

I've never seen a proof Morgan without full hair details before

Comments

Leave a Comment