What are your thoughts on this being a proof Morgan?
relicsncoins
Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here is a link to the auction.
Proof Morgan?
Here is the coin in question. I'll admit, I am not an avid collector of Morgans, but this looks like a PL or DMPL business strike to me. Maybe a Morgan collector will chime in with an opinion.
Proof Morgan?
Here is the coin in question. I'll admit, I am not an avid collector of Morgans, but this looks like a PL or DMPL business strike to me. Maybe a Morgan collector will chime in with an opinion.
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
0
Comments
Eric
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>Surfaces and rims say business strike. >>
I agree, nothing proof about this coin.
<< <i>I think that's a business strike. I'm not sure the strike is all there, the wire rims...The font and numerals seem squared but I think that's just from die polish - not squared enough. My .02.
Eric >>
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>List states it is PCGS MS65. >>
It also says it's a Carson City. I think that was just the last certified coin he listed and didn't change selected items. The description appears to be for this coin and is clearly claiming this to be a proof.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
"This is the extremely rare 1896 PROOF Morgan. There were only 762 ever minted!"
-Paul
Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
<< <i>That is absolutely not a proof. >>
I agree.
ok
Rims are not sharp, the ding on the 6, and the general chatter over the surfaces.
A juiced up image of a circ strike.
vamworld page for 1896 proof
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>Where are the breast feathers and hair over the ear? Bagmarks on a proof are a nice touch too.
They do not preculde a coin from being Pr. I know you did not mean that RR, but I have heard that enough in posts lately. Sure, unusual - but just of one several secondary or even tertiary indicators to me IMHO. Circ Pr Morgans can be awesome! ...Well, apart from one 1895 I recall ;p
Anyway, this just screams DPLM apart from the weak strike, not wire rims, rounded letters and so on (at best, a lotta flow lines and I am not seeing "watery" but perhaps the image...good contrast!).
Eric
I agree, nothing proof about this coin. }}
Agreed.
<< <i>
<< <i>Where are the breast feathers and hair over the ear? Bagmarks on a proof are a nice touch too.
They do not preculde a coin from being Pr. I know you did not mean that RR, but I have heard that enough in posts lately. Sure, unusual - but just of one several secondary or even tertiary indicators to me IMHO. Circ Pr Morgans can be awesome! ...Well, apart from one 1895 I recall ;p
Anyway, this just screams DPLM apart from the weak strike, not wire rims, rounded letters and so on (at best, a lotta flow lines and I am not seeing "watery" but perhaps the image...good contrast!).
Eric
1896 is one of those years where Morgan proofs typically come in exceptional quality and strike. The odds of an 1896 proof Morgan having near gem surfaces, weak details,
and bagmarks is very low imo. Sure, never say never. But as others have stated, there is nothing about this coin that says proof. Now I have seen some UDM Morgans (>12")
that were at least arguable about their potential proof status as they have superb strikes and no bagmarks....just some whispy hairlines. In the end, even those didn't have the
rim/edge details to be fully convincing. Since there is no way sure-fire way to preclude ANY PL coin from having been struck as a proof, one has to go by the preponderance of the
data. The data is overwhelming on this one. And a proof that doesn't look like a proof, doesn't come from standard proof dies, will probably never come close to being worth what a
standard proof coin is worth. The "ticky" portrait on this coin is far more indicative of bag handled DMPL/PL coins than it is of proofs (circulated or otherwise).
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>I know nothing about morgan dollar proofs, but it looks like a nice coin and valley forge coins has been in business for 25 years. Also are they a PNG member or are they just flying the banner on the listing? >>
And yet, they're dead wrong about calling this a proof.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
<< <i>I know nothing about morgan dollar proofs, but it looks like a nice coin and valley forge coins has been in business for 25 years. Also are they a PNG member or are they just flying the banner on the listing? >>
And yet, they're dead wrong about calling this a proof. >>
Yup. I would guess some new employee made a mistake.
Free Trial
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
What are you talking about with all due respect? SEE first response to this thread..This is obviously not Proof nor did I ever think it was.
Best,
Eric
Best,
Eric