whats going on with this proof morgan on heritage?

joebb21 · April 11, 2011 7:49AM

heritage link

AnkurJ · April 11, 2011 7:52AM

Looks like she was dipped and not properly rinsed off.

BigE · April 11, 2011 7:54AM

Almost looks like someone tried to wipe the haze off, nice big pic, whats the reverse like?----------BigE

relicsncoins · April 11, 2011 8:00AM

They overshot with the frost adding machine.

JupitarCoins · April 11, 2011 10:38AM

That pic is way too small to see

commoncents05 · April 11, 2011 10:56AM

I think the artificial frost is starting to run.

-Paul

TexasNationals · April 11, 2011 12:10PM

Artificial frosting is bleeding off

DRUNNER · April 11, 2011 12:15PM

I am going to agree with Texas . . . .

Drunner
(Don't add frost to my Doilies!!!)

scotty1419 · April 11, 2011 12:23PM

yeesh - looks radioactive - she's glowing!

Monstarcoins · April 11, 2011 12:46PM

Artificial frost? I hope you folks are just kidding

djdilliodon · April 11, 2011 1:07PM

<< Artificial frost? I hope you folks are just kidding >>

Nope its out there!

Monstarcoins · April 11, 2011 1:10PM

<< 

<< Artificial frost? I hope you folks are just kidding >>

Nope its out there! >>

Right, I know that but it isn't on the piece in question

EagleEye · April 11, 2011 3:39PM

It is certainly artificial. Even the surface abrasions (on the neck) have frost.

I think it should be removed from the sale. Did you alert Heritage?

djdilliodon · April 11, 2011 3:48PM

<< 

<< 

<< Artificial frost? I hope you folks are just kidding >>

Nope its out there! >>

Right, I know that but it isn't on the piece in question >>

I believe it is. The frost goes way to far into the fields if you ask me. Heritage needs to remove it.

golfer72 · April 11, 2011 7:21PM

How is this Heritage's problem? isnt the coin slabbed by PCGS?

ColonelJessup · April 11, 2011 9:19PM

Did anyone notice how the stars are frosted too? Every star. Now that's precision work. And the lettering. And the date. It's not like this date comes with much natural frost.

magikbilly · April 11, 2011 9:53PM

"How is this Heritage's problem? isn't the coin slabbed by PCGS?" - golfer72

My thoughts exactly. One might also hope the seller of such items identified this kind problem.

Best,
Eric

Monstarcoins · April 11, 2011 10:47PM

Howcome anything nice has got to be fake??? Why is it nobody in the numismatic community can enjoy something nice if its not theirs?

commoncents05 · April 12, 2011 2:20AM

<< Howcome anything nice has got to be fake??? Why is it nobody in the numismatic community can enjoy something nice if its not theirs? >>

I love Proof Morgans, and if this wasn't artificially frosted, I would enjoy it. The coin in question is clearly messed with.

-Paul

TJM965 · April 12, 2011 3:24AM

Obviously fake. The coin and the holder are way larger than normal.

WTCG · April 12, 2011 3:28AM

<< Artificial frost? I hope you folks are just kidding >>

It happens more than you think.

JamesM · April 12, 2011 3:30AM

I would have to agree with the alterations that have been pointed out I would think this coin was dipped and frosted

Kove · April 12, 2011 3:38AM

The difference in the PCGS price guide between a regular 1898 PR 63 and a DCAM PR 63 is at least $1000.

The financial incentive is definitely there to doctor this coin with artificial frost to get a DCAM designation.

Wolf359 · April 12, 2011 3:57AM

1898 Morgan Proofs were among the best that were made.

Without seeing the coin in hand...it's a Rinse issue...imo

johnny9434 · April 12, 2011 3:59AM

that looks like it spent to much time at the nuke plants in japan

ChrisRx · April 12, 2011 4:01AM

fivecents · April 12, 2011 4:06AM

Artifical frosting.

Darn that Betty crocker!!

Kove · April 12, 2011 4:38AM

Rick Snow hit the nail on the head. When some of the contact marks are frosted on the inside, you know something has been done. A contact mark should show fresh reflective metal, not frosting.

ColonelJessup · April 12, 2011 5:13AM

<< Rick Snow hit the nail on the head. When some of the contact marks are frosted on the inside, you know something has been done. A contact mark should show fresh reflective metal, not frosting. >>

OTM... though there can be frost disturbances that create subtle gradations of reflectivity of frost yet not expose bright metal.

Started as Bondo

Monstarcoins · April 12, 2011 11:46AM

Okay can somebody tell me how you can call this coin artificial frosting? I mean can you back it up with facts? Because if you cannot I think its pretty messed up somebody is losing bidders because of your false claims. I see nothing wrong with the coin

dragon · April 12, 2011 12:13PM

After reading through this thread, all I can say is it's a very good thing a lot of the posters here aren't employed as a grader at PCGS.

Wolf359 · April 12, 2011 12:21PM

<< Rick Snow hit the nail on the head. When some of the contact marks are frosted on the inside, you know something has been done. A contact mark should show fresh reflective metal, not frosting. >>

There aren't any contact marks I see, which is why I posted both the 63 and the 67.

Monstarcoins · April 12, 2011 12:25PM

Dragon

dragon · April 12, 2011 12:29PM

<< It is certainly artificial. Even the surface abrasions (on the neck) have frost.

I think it should be removed from the sale. Did you alert Heritage? >>

I'll bet you $100.00 it's good and PCGS made the correct call.

commoncents05 · April 12, 2011 12:29PM

This coin is severely hairlined, which is normal for the grade, but note that the hairlines are only seen in the fields, the devices are immaculate. There are also a few small contact marks on the devices that are frosted over as well.

-Paul

Monstarcoins · April 12, 2011 12:32PM

<< This coin is severely hairlined, which is normal for the grade, but note that the hairlines are only seen in the fields, the devices are immaculate. There are also a few small contact marks on the devices that are frosted over as well.

-Paul >>

Actually the marks on the stars are not frosted over. The marks on her face are not enough to break through the frost.

Wolf359 · April 12, 2011 12:32PM

<< This coin is severely hairlined, which is normal for the grade, but note that the hairlines are only seen in the fields, the devices are immaculate. There are also a few small contact marks on the devices that are frosted over as well.

-Paul >>

Where? Show me, please.

truecollector70 · April 12, 2011 2:33PM

When I see a coin such as this, with experts questioning the grade . I look up the serial number to see what was submitted with it..IE previous and following consecutive numbers.

This coin 19488574 had a five coin submission In a run from 19498571 to 575 the star of the show is this :

Cert Verification #: 19498573
PCGS Coin #: 10010
Date, mintmark: 1853
Denomination: $20
Variety: Assay 884
Pedigree: Eliasberg
Country: The United States of America
Grade: MS61
PCGS Price GuideSM Value: $55,000
Holder Type: Standard
Population: 1

Previous to this submission there was a run of very low population 1934 Chinese coins. With serial numbers (2 less) then 19495871. That run was 282 coins with serial numbers from 19498341 to 19498569.

Before that submission and what shocked me where .....1,945.... 2011 coins * all pr70 in consecutive numbers from 19496395 to 19498340. All Peoples republic of China minted coins...

*(a tip that this coin on the post, was PCGS graded in 2011)

If one can make 1945 consecutive serial number pr70 in one submission, that is a real testament to The Chinese Mints expertise and superb quality control..

Lets hope the government mint workers do not moon light.

EagleEye · April 12, 2011 3:20PM

We'll get a chance to inspect it in person (edited to add - where is this coin? Central States Auction?), but I think the clue is the rims, which do not look at all frosted. The PR67 has heavily frosted rims.

The mark on the neck (directly under the middle hair curl point) is deep enough to go through the frosting and shine differently. It is frosted just like the rest of the face.

The PR67 is a beauty but if you are holding it up as a comparison in favor of the PR63, then it is not a favorable comparison.

EagleEye · April 12, 2011 3:42PM

Why is it so different in the different images? link Is it just lighting?

Steve27 · April 12, 2011 11:04PM

IMO this coin has been cleaned and chemically treated (i.e. it may have been dipped). The odd areas where it appears the "frost" coming off the devices is actually haze which wasn't removed by the dip in some areas and dip residue in other areas. While I suspect the pictures don't reflect what the coin looks like in-hand, the massive hairlines should have relegated this coin to a "genuine" holder (again JMO).

whats going on with this proof morgan on heritage?

Comments

Leave a Comment