RWB

For clarity I'll add that photos taken through plastic holders impose their own set of defects and inaccuracies....regardless of how "good" the photographer.

Ahhh...good to know -- kind of like a new acronym for "UFO."

Yeah, that's pretty much it. The mixture of compounds on the surface alter the human perception of color, also. This is complicated by thin film interference and the colors of individual compounds that are scattered and not fully resolved by our vision. I suggest that collectors never rely of a description or photo of a coin's colors for a buying decision.

A coin is merely deformed metal. The appearance is altered by dies and their surface condition during striking. "Color" is not to be confused with surface reflections, light scatter, etc. Post production conditions can alter the appearance including color.

EF

Return them for replacement.

1630Boston, member on another forum, posted “Please tell me what causes the difference in the color of Gold Coins.” This was based on an 1887 letter in the NNP US Mint files and transcribed by NNP. Another member posted a link to a web site that was presented as answering the question. First, collectors should understand that multiple factors affect the original color of US gold coins, Second, after about 1847 all U.S. gold coins were made from refined metal of 0.999 fine. Third, objective evaluation of coin color requires attention to detail and neutral viewing conditions. Always evaluate the color of a coin under standard daylight and 18% gray backgrounds. All uncontrolled light must be blocked, otherwise the color your eye perceives will be inaccurate. 1. Early years. The U.S. Mint had very limited gold refining capabilities. Nearly all gold was derived from foreign coins deposited at the Philadelphia Mint. The Melter & Refiner then added fine gold to bring the alloy up to standard, or added copper to reduce the fineness to the same standard. 2. The normal alloy was a mixture of copper and silver with a maximum of half the alloy being silver. Under ideal conditions, this produced a slightly light gold colored coin. If more than half the alloy was copper, the coins became a little darker, with an increasingly orange tone. If all the alloy was copper – as with melted French or British coins – the gold pieces had more of the color of double eagles from the 1870s and 80s. 3. The reason for this odd alloy was to permit standard gold coin to be made from a wide mixture of foreign coins and limited native gold dust. It also helped to obscure trace element contamination, which was very common at that time. Refining (and assaying) were not of the quality in later commercial use. 4. Another factor was the fuel used to melt gold, silver and copper. Coal was always contaminated with sulfur which got into the crucibles and formed compounds with both silver and copper. Oxygen combined readily with copper, and available fluxes were unable to absorb all the oxides and trace contaminants. 5. Due to contaminants and the unstable alloy mix even such minor things as stirring/mixing the melt, and the time to ladle or pour ingots could produce slight variations in coin color. 6. French indemnity gold and later California gold pushed the Mint toward using only copper for alloy, and insisting on only copper of the highest purity. (Much came from a Baltimore company.) Doing this made ingots more consistent, less brittle, and melts more uniform – resulting in better coin quality with less wear on dies and equipment. Southern state gold and then California gold also pushed the Mint to adopt much better refining methods. Californian gold was especially troublesome because it often contained platinum, iridium and osmium in measurable amounts, and these had to be removed before the gold was pure enough for coinage use. 7. From about 1847 US gold coins were more uniform in color and had become the somewhat orange-gold color associated with double eagles. Melting remained dependent on coal so sulfur still contaminated copper. When gas-fired furnaces were gradually put into use in the 1890s there was much less sulfur and the coins settled into a stable orange-gold color. 8. Coins using silver in the alloy can sometimes take on a slightly greenish cast from multiple silver species and interaction with copper compounds. 20th century sandblast proofs – primarily undipped pieces – can look greenish because of ambient fluorescent light reflections. This little note should help members understand about the color of gold coins.

"When you wish upon a star, you might get a stale cigar....." (Jiminy Cricket's original lyrics.)

Can you give members a lot more info and better photos (sharper, full frame, etc.) ? The 1890 dollar pictured as an ordinary EF with the usual dings and scrapes. Is there a mintmark? None= Philadelphia, O=New Orleans, S=San Francisco, CC= Carson, NV. An 1890-CC in EF retail of about $95; the others are closer to melt at about $30....provided you can find a buyer for an unauthenticated coin like that.

Similar to some not designating coins PL because they have a little wear or are not Morgan dollars. The criteria should be identical regardless of denomination or gradable condition.

That's probably a good thing since it doesn't seem to be followed anyway....

Same as any other detail-related attribute - wear is irrelevant.

"Particularly newly discovered branch mint proofs in the Morgan series. Or more particularly, ones that don't yet have their own SP tier in any database but are obviously unique." Stephen - Can you elaborate on this from the original post?

Directly from NGC grading guidelines. I would be curious to see the coin in question as well Strike Type MS - Mint State. Coins struck in the same format as circulation issues. Applies to grades 60 to 70. PF - Proof. Coins struck in a special format for collectors. SP - Specimen. A hybrid between Mint State and Proof. These appear to be extreme simplifications without meaningful definitions. They also seem to differ from actual usage – but that’s up to the TPG to fix. “Specimen” seems more frequently used to mean a specially prepared or struck piece made as a result of a specific event or occasion. Using the NGC definition so-called "one sided proofs" could be labeled specimen.....It is a mule with no hope of progeny.

"Pedigree" refers to a line of reproductive descent. The term is simply wrong when applied to coins. It's the same sloppy, fuzzy meaning language including "burnished," "sintered," "wire rim," "roman proof," etc. "Provenance" refers to previous possessors. RE: "....insists any unsupported claims be substantiated with documentation." Yep, I'll adopt that one, too. "proof of claim" is a very simple concept and absolutely applies to "specimen" or other questionable designations.

Thanks. I thought it was a reference to Morgan dollars.

What is this critter? I am very skeptical of "finds" of this sort by anyone with a financial interest in the coin or its sale.

Excellent collective sleuthing. Please let everyone know the result when you get it back from NGC.

Are they going to send out the steamed shrimp and lobster by mail like last time?

As for how NGC or any TPG evaluates a coin and decides it's a "specimen" - the OP will have to ask them. Us mere mortals have no insights.

Not sure what this refers to. Can the OP elaborate?

Philadelphia was the only mint that had the necessary equipment to make true proofs (or master coins a formerly called). Creating proof was much more complicated than simply polishing a die pair and then giving it a hard wack onto a smooth planchet. This far, not one "branch mint proof" has been demonstrated to have been made at the designated mint. Accepting these critters also ignores the practice of Philadelphia making samples from mintmarked dies for use as quality guides for the branch mints. (Examples are San Francisco PPIE commemoratives, new issues at New Orleans, and others.) It is not possible to make a conclusive statement with a simple "it looks like" examination. Some small denomination coins can resemble proofs - at least for a few strikes - but careful comparison with authentic proof coins of the same denomination and date will show clear differences. Similar "tunnel thought" is seen with some notorious circulation coins -- 1894-S dimes or 1913 Liberty nickels being called "proof." As for calling a coin "specimen," that is a very risky proposition. There is no accepted definition. It MUST, absolutely, be supported by documentation. Very few exist - notable are the 1921 silver dollars from Denver with their "specimen-ness" engraved on them, or the "first" 1878 Morgan dollar now in the Hayes museum. If there are no documents, then it is simply a nicely produced coin. Collectors and authenticators must accept that die surfaces change during use, and that a piece made from a fresh die will not be identical to one made near the end of use. The two coins mentioned above are good examples, as are the phony "1964 Special Mint Set" coins, and others. These mistakes can be attributed to overzealous examination, and to commercial pressure to make something out of nothing and boost the profit. (Not saying TPGs do this deliberately - but they can be pestered as much as anyone else.)

I didn't hear anything....

The coin is worth a few cents in copper.

Still acid damage.