Not all of these coins will grade, and I think most of them are ugly. Wouldn't touch these with a ten foot pole, don't like them, don't think PCGS will either.
<< <i>After re-reading this thread I have to ask. Would some of the posters that seem so sure these are AT'd please explain they're reasoning.
No offense intended, as it does not matter to me either way. Just trying to learn. >>
I don't think they are actually 'artificially toned'.
I just feel that the TPG's (PCGS) will deem the toning a little too 'artificial looking' and therefore the coins will not grade. They are very strict right now about toning.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
<< <i>After re-reading this thread I have to ask. Would some of the posters that seem so sure these are AT'd please explain they're reasoning.
No offense intended, as it does not matter to me either way. Just trying to learn. >>
I don't think they are actually 'artificially toned'.
I just feel that the TPG's (PCGS) will deem the toning a little too 'artificial looking' and therefore the coins will not grade. They are very strict right now about toning. >>
I agree with your theory but several posters to this thread say they are "obviously AT" I just wanted to know why they think that.
2x2 Kraft envelopes are available for those who doubt the toning. If you're young enough, put the silver in NOW and see what happens in a few years. I have some used ones if anyone would like me to mail them one or two.
I'm trying hard to like these, but I just can't. Not all of these will grade, maybe the 93 S or the 96 S, but I really don't know. Would be very interested to see the results though.
1884-S-----MS63. I want some of what you're smoking! >>
why not ? >>
Besides the fact that it looks AT, there appears to be light wear on Liberty's face and hair, as well as on the eagle's breast.>>
you guys know how i feel about grading from pictures. with the 84-S the obverse looks like it just suffers from a weak strike instead of rub and the reverse could be a difference in the tone or it could rub. i guess it's easier to criticize than to actually take a chance and post some guesses. geez, if you did that and were wrong the world wouldn't end. of course, we each have to make our own choices. mine are on page three.
84S - AU 55 on an average day and AU58 on a good day. Forget the toning. The images of the obverse shows light wear. And even if it's not wear there are way too many hits on the face for anything close to a 63. That's the only one I thought you were way off on. Besides it wasn't critisizm, it was supposed to be funny. I post guesses on grades from images here all the time. And yes, most are wrong! Lifes too short to take things so personal.
Regardless of the grades, they are all good looking Morgans and none look AT to my eye.
The toning creeps inbetween the raised devices of the coins in a way that's virtually impossible for a doctor to achieve.
The 1884-S is very similar in toning to the Morgan example that is in my Red Book on page 186 where they are illustrating the first reverse of 1878, 8 tail feathers.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by inferiors. – Plato
Comments
Wouldn't touch these with a ten foot pole, don't like them, don't think PCGS will either.
<< <i>After re-reading this thread I have to ask.
Would some of the posters that seem so sure these are AT'd please explain they're reasoning.
No offense intended, as it does not matter to me either way.
Just trying to learn. >>
I don't think they are actually 'artificially toned'.
I just feel that the TPG's (PCGS) will deem the toning a little too 'artificial looking' and therefore the coins will not grade. They are very strict right now about toning.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>
<< <i>After re-reading this thread I have to ask.
Would some of the posters that seem so sure these are AT'd please explain they're reasoning.
No offense intended, as it does not matter to me either way.
Just trying to learn. >>
I don't think they are actually 'artificially toned'.
I just feel that the TPG's (PCGS) will deem the toning a little too 'artificial looking' and therefore the coins will not grade. They are very strict right now about toning. >>
I agree with your theory but several posters to this thread say they are "obviously AT"
I just wanted to know why they think that.
1-62
2-Genuine-color
3-58 (very hard coin to try to grade from pics)
4-45
5-Genuine color
6-Genuine color
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I think they all will grade... eventually.
It may take a few trips to PCGS.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
88-S genuine
1893-CC graded
1893-S genuine
1895-O genuine
1896-S graded
<< <i>1884-S-----MS63 >>
I want some of what you're smoking!
My #1 Low Ball Peace Dollar Set
Not all of these will grade, maybe the 93 S or the 96 S, but I really don't know.
Would be very interested to see the results though.
Successful BST transactions with: copperhunter (2010), Tdec1000 (2010), barrytrot (2011), kaz, (2011), Metalsman (2011), jimineez1 (2020), U1chicago (2020)
<< <i>
<< <i>1884-S-----MS63 >>
I want some of what you're smoking! >>
why not ?
Barrytrot(2),Stupid,Savoyspecial,docq,ecoinquest, halfhunter,snman,Coll3ctor.
wondercoin. Blue594. internetjunky.
keepdachange. Scrapman1077.Ahrensdad, mrmom, mygrandeoso, blu62vette, Clackamas,giorgio11, adriana, cucamongacoin,
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>1884-S-----MS63 >>
I want some of what you're smoking! >>
why not ? >>
Besides the fact that it looks AT, there appears to be light wear on Liberty's face and hair, as well as on the eagle's breast.
I want some of what you're smoking! >>
why not ? >>
Besides the fact that it looks AT, there appears to be light wear on Liberty's face and hair, as well as on the eagle's breast.>>
you guys know how i feel about grading from pictures. with the 84-S the obverse looks like it just suffers from a weak strike instead of rub and the reverse could be a difference in the tone or it could rub. i guess it's easier to criticize than to actually take a chance and post some guesses. geez, if you did that and were wrong the world wouldn't end. of course, we each have to make our own choices. mine are on page three.
Forget the toning. The images of the obverse shows light wear.
And even if it's not wear there are way too many hits on the face for anything close to a 63.
That's the only one I thought you were way off on. Besides it wasn't critisizm, it was supposed to be funny.
I post guesses on grades from images here all the time. And yes, most are wrong!
Lifes too short to take things so personal.
My #1 Low Ball Peace Dollar Set
1884-S: MS details, cleaned and re-toned.
1893-CC: MS62 if you're lucky, probably cleaned and re-toned, weak strike.
1893-S: EF40 details, lightly cleaned and re-toned.
1895-O: AU58 details, cleaned and re-toned.
1896-S: MS details, cleaned and re-toned, environmental damage.
All are genuine.
The toning creeps inbetween the raised devices of the coins in a way that's virtually
impossible for a doctor to achieve.
The 1884-S is very similar in toning to the Morgan example that is in my Red Book on page 186
where they are illustrating the first reverse of 1878, 8 tail feathers.
is that you end up being governed by inferiors. – Plato