Options
NT R AT?
BAJJERFAN
Posts: 31,624 ✭✭✭✭✭
theknowitalltroll;
0
BAJJERFAN
Posts: 31,624 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
bob
Edited to add: I sniffed my monitor and smelled nothing.....obviously NT
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
<< <i>I believe that coin is AT >>
How so?
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
AB
U.S. Type Set
<< <i>I am in the NT crowd, and am surprised it's even a question. >>
The question was more for provoking discussion than anything. While the neons are the attention grabbers on coins like this, the golds, yellows, pinks and aquas are awesome in their own right.
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe that coin is AT >>
How so? >>
Just to get your "goat".
<< <i>Could well be NT... however, not difficult to duplicate. Cheers, RickO >>
So how much would you charge to do a roll of gem 96-O's for me?
that light purple/yellow/green then the mix of yellow/weird purple/green just looks like a crayola display more than NT.
I actually just went to LEGEND's website just to look at some of the nice colored morgans they were selling from the sunnywood/gsa/simpson collections and did not see any morgan that has this type of coloring.
I would be VERY surprised if this coin would come back graded if resubmitted.
Just my opinion though and others may disagree if they please
ABANDONED
<< <i>NT.....99.9999999% sure even based on the image >>
It's that .0000001% that worries me. I'd say AT.
...and like mumu stated: < Put it on anything other than a morgan though, and BAM suddenly its blatant AT >
Funny how it works that way.
<< <i>
<< <i>NT.....99.9999999% sure even based on the image >>
It's that .0000001% that worries me. I'd say AT.
...and like mumu stated: < Put it on anything other than a morgan though, and BAM suddenly its blatant AT >
Funny how it works that way.
It's not particularly funny, considering no other series of coin experienced storage times comparable to the Morgan Dollar, and Peace Dollars were washed in such a way which discouraged such toning.
<< <i>My reasoning for saying the coin is AT is from how the color just looks to much like the AT raw coins I have seen on ebay.
that light purple/yellow/green then the mix of yellow/weird purple/green just looks like a crayola display more than NT.
I actually just went to LEGEND's website just to look at some of the nice colored morgans they were selling from the sunnywood/gsa/simpson collections and did not see any morgan that has this type of coloring.
I would be VERY surprised if this coin would come back graded if resubmitted.
Just my opinion though and others may disagree if they please >>
I have several others with similar coloration and variation of colors and at least 2 [1885-Os] were claimed by a board member here to have come from an original bag of Morgan dollars, the opening of which he witnessed or took part in.
These are definitely on the AT side if you ask me.
<< <i>Could well be NT... however, not difficult to duplicate. Cheers, RickO >>
If it is "not that difficult" to duplicate then why don't we see better dates like the 86-o 89-o 91-o 92-o 97-o with similar toning? If one is THAT good at it, then a pricier coin like a ms63 1897-o should be a low risk endeavor, no? Even the common date 1888-o doesn't afford a plethora of nicely toned examples.
I really am not impressed by the so-called evidence of people seeing such specimens when a sealed bag is first opened. Mint bags are NOT impervious to gaseous or liquid intrusions of oxidants, perhaps thought of as "AT in the bag" . Lo and behold we see eclispe patterns with coin overlay, etc.
Well, just Love coins, period.
The Reverse appears AT (Acutely Toned)
<< <i>Must be kidding at even asking that - these are always voted "NT" on these boards. Politicall correct answer "NT"; IMO, absolutely AT.
I really am not impressed by the so-called evidence of people seeing such specimens when a sealed bag is first opened. Mint bags are NOT impervious to gaseous or liquid intrusions of oxidants, perhaps thought of as "AT in the bag" . Lo and behold we see eclispe patterns with coin overlay, etc. >>
If it was AT as in someone did over a weekend in their lab versus thutty years or more in a mint bag, then why wouldn't you do it on the money side like the obverse? I have a number of these and all are toned on the reverse. Never saw one toned on the obverse and I don't recall a similar obverse toned Morgan even being posted here.
<< <i>Must be kidding at even asking that - these are always voted "NT" on these boards. Politicall correct answer "NT"; IMO, absolutely AT.
I really am not impressed by the so-called evidence of people seeing such specimens when a sealed bag is first opened. Mint bags are NOT impervious to gaseous or liquid intrusions of oxidants, perhaps thought of as "AT in the bag" . Lo and behold we see eclispe patterns with coin overlay, etc. >>
Labeling such coins NT has nothing to do with political correctness. In many cases it is based on experience in having seen what bag toned Morgan Dollars look like. And yes, (the) toning can be the result of "gaseous intrusions", but those which most consider to be natural, as opposed to intentionally induced.
Have you ever opened or seen opened quantities of bags of Morgan Dollars, which had been undisturbed for decades and seen what the coins looked like? Either way, many of us have, and state our NT opinions, accordingly. Do you consider all bag toning to be artificial, or just that which is especially colorful?
<< <i>I love these questions. Neither you nor anybody else here can define these terms except in a very abstract and useless way and yet at one in the same time you expect as a practical matter we can somehow rationally differentiate same on a coin. I'm sorry, that just still blows my mind... >>
A coin toned in a canvas mint bag--which this piece almost certain was--is undeniably accepted as natural toning within the numismatic community. Just because the fringes of a definition of a word can be muddled doesn't mean the core substance of the word no longer holds up.
the owner was sitting at a table with his dip and rinse a pile of morgans and a zippo lighter and when he was done every one of his morgans had a very similar appearance. I am not implying that your coin is not NT just pointing out how easy it is to duplicate.
<< <i>BAJJERFAN: "If it is "not that difficult" to duplicate then why don't we see better dates like the 86-o 89-o 91-o 92-o 97-o with similar toning? If one is THAT good at it, then a pricier coin like a ms63 1897-o should be a low risk endeavor, no? Even the common date 1888-o doesn't afford a plethora of nicely toned examples." >>
RickO is right. You're just uninformed. Look up "Liver of Sulfur." Read it and weep...
<< <i>Ecichlid: "Love the guys who say "it's not difficult to duplicate" but can't duplicate the coin if you offered them a million dollars to prove it. Of course, they could show you how to do it, but then they would have to kill you." >>
Ditto...
<< <i>
<< <i>BAJJERFAN: "If it is "not that difficult" to duplicate then why don't we see better dates like the 86-o 89-o 91-o 92-o 97-o with similar toning? If one is THAT good at it, then a pricier coin like a ms63 1897-o should be a low risk endeavor, no? Even the common date 1888-o doesn't afford a plethora of nicely toned examples." >>
RickO is right. You're just uninformed. Look up "Liver of Sulfur." Read it and weep...
<< <i>Ecichlid: "Love the guys who say "it's not difficult to duplicate" but can't duplicate the coin if you offered them a million dollars to prove it. Of course, they could show you how to do it, but then they would have to kill you." >>
Ditto... >>
I don't see how that addressed the questions pertaining to better dates not typically displaying that type of toning.
<< <i>
<< <i>BAJJERFAN: "If it is "not that difficult" to duplicate then why don't we see better dates like the 86-o 89-o 91-o 92-o 97-o with similar toning? If one is THAT good at it, then a pricier coin like a ms63 1897-o should be a low risk endeavor, no? Even the common date 1888-o doesn't afford a plethora of nicely toned examples." >>
RickO is right. You're just uninformed. Look up "Liver of Sulfur." Read it and weep...
<< <i>Ecichlid: "Love the guys who say "it's not difficult to duplicate" but can't duplicate the coin if you offered them a million dollars to prove it. Of course, they could show you how to do it, but then they would have to kill you." >>
Ditto... >>
Sulfer is a common chemical that is used to AT coins but it is also a hard chemical to control. Applying it via a wet method will never i mean never give you that result. Even in a gasing form it is hard to control and will still only produce certain colors. It also tends to make coins develope carbon spots and gives the toning a smokey appearance.
<< <i>
<< <i>BAJJERFAN: "If it is "not that difficult" to duplicate then why don't we see better dates like the 86-o 89-o 91-o 92-o 97-o with similar toning? If one is THAT good at it, then a pricier coin like a ms63 1897-o should be a low risk endeavor, no? Even the common date 1888-o doesn't afford a plethora of nicely toned examples." >>
RickO is right. You're just uninformed. Look up "Liver of Sulfur." Read it and weep...
<< <i>Ecichlid: "Love the guys who say "it's not difficult to duplicate" but can't duplicate the coin if you offered them a million dollars to prove it. Of course, they could show you how to do it, but then they would have to kill you." >>
Ditto... >>
I read it and am not weeping. LOL. Then again the same person said twice in recent times that dipping ASEs in acetone will prevent formation of milk spots which I'm pretty sure is untrue. The same person he quotes told me that the dip is Ezest.
<< <i>I don't see how that addressed the questions pertaining to better dates not typically displaying that type of toning. >>
I didn't address those questions because, to be polite about it, they're highly speculative. But if the only inference you're capable of drawing from that is that sulfur-dipping therefore must be very difficult, I'll offer another inference. Those more expensive coins hadn't been sulfur-dipped because they had already been acid-dipped by the very same doctor-dealers who are now causing the sulfur-dipping problem and destroying the originality of our coins in that manner to make that same, fast, deceptive buck.
<< <i>I read it and am not weeping. LOL. Then again the same person said twice in recent times that dipping ASEs in acetone will prevent formation of milk spots which I'm pretty sure is untrue. The same person he quotes told me that the dip is Ezest. >>
Some people are dips, themselves.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see how that addressed the questions pertaining to better dates not typically displaying that type of toning. >>
I didn't address those questions because, to be polite about it, they're highly speculative. But if the only inference you're capable of drawing from that is that sulfur-dipping therefore must be very difficult, I'll offer another inference. Those more expensive coins hadn't been sulfur-dipped because they had already been acid-dipped by the very same doctor-dealers who are now causing the sulfur-dipping problem and destroying the originality of our coins in that manner to make that same, fast, deceptive buck. >>
If a coin can bring in 10x sheet by being toned than being white, why would you not tone it? Also why would you not tone the obverse when it is obvious to most that that is the money side? Will the liver of sulfur work better on freshly dipped coins or on older coins with conditioned surfaces?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see how that addressed the questions pertaining to better dates not typically displaying that type of toning. >>
I didn't address those questions because, to be polite about it, they're highly speculative. But if the only inference you're capable of drawing from that is that sulfur-dipping therefore must be very difficult, I'll offer another inference. Those more expensive coins hadn't been sulfur-dipped because they had already been acid-dipped by the very same doctor-dealers who are now causing the sulfur-dipping problem and destroying the originality of our coins in that manner to make that same, fast, deceptive buck. >>
If a coin can bring in 10x sheet by being toned than being white, why would you not tone it? Also why would you not tone the obverse when it is obvious to most that that is the money side? Will the liver of sulfur work better on freshly dipped coins or on older coins with conditioned surfaces? >>
Again, to be fair, these are highly-speculative questions that have any number of answers to them. I can spend this whole day going over and pointing out to you all the possible answers. Instead, if you'll forgive me, I've got cold beer, hamburgers and a grill on my mind, right now; why don't you save me the bother? I assume you've got some so-called, "junk silver?" If not in coins, then in jewelry? Pick up this. Experiment a little. Answer the questions, yourself. I mean, if you don't really mind too much...