EagleRJO

Agreed. And getting familiar with some who have made honest assessments on raw coins which you may be interested in is huge in my book, like "just so you know this one has been cleaned and may or may not straight grade", or "this one is a borderline VF+ to XF, but I would still value it at VF+" etc. I would stick with a dealer like that even if some of the coins may be just a bit more occasionally. And of course, there is no substitute for learning how to make those assessments for yourself.

@VKurtBI think you are getting sucked into this guy's worthless junk science "tests" which is pointless given the appearance of the coin edge. I think the rooster that @Quintus Arrius has would disagree with the last part as grading and SG tests have been around since 1892 when Joseph Hooper published the first proposed grading standards. But I guess that is "a rather new development".

You don't have to wait for one day, just check out the articles and videos on grading by Rod Gillis, a grader and ANA Director of Education. Graders are justifiably critical of higher grade Morgans as they need to be very clean exceptional coins as well as a match with other higher-grade examples. And I am left wondering who conveyed the title of "East Coast Rooster Meister". I thought Ricky had that title.

People are taking the time to look at the coins you have posted and give you their honest opinions. Naturally they will vary as grading from just photos is very subjective. But I guess if it doesn't align with your perception that the 1885 it's a "monster" coin comparable with the "top pop 68.5" it's not worthy of a response on your assessment of the issues raised having had the coin in-hand, and some that think it may be a re-toned mid MS grade are the only ones that are ... "helpful". Even an MS-67+ is extremely rare for Morgans and the TPG's don't hand them out like cupcakes. Also, I don't see any of the classic indicators that the 1885 is a VAM-32, where you should be going to VamWorld for comparisons and not Google, and I agree with JPM's comments on the 1886. Add to that the grainy or granular appearance of surfaces again and heavy hits or bag marks on the face and elsewhere. Did you get both of these coins from the same source?

That looks like it's projecting outward and not something that's incuse, so it looks like a blister or die chip and not a hit. Is it projecting out in-hand? Very strange either way as it looks like a dude.

This listing needs to be nuked.

🐓: Wait, Taylor before you submit it, did you look at the edge? Taylor: Yes I did, why? 🐓: It clearly shows it's a Cu-Ni clad coin worth $0.50 Taylor: Yea, but I don't believe my own eyes! 🐓: Well then, knock yourself out and submit it. Taylor: But then how can I list the coin for $13,700 before I submit it and without people calling me a scammer? 🐓: That Taylor is the right question. Program terminated. Q.A.: Very smart rooster [ @Quintus ArriusI couldn't resist with a little I-Robot spin 😜]

Agreed that the toning is off. However, just toning on one side isn't really an indicator of legit toning anymore. The people who use AT to hide issues with coins or artificially improve the visual appearance and value have wised up to that flag and it is often on just the obverse lately. There is an ANA eLearning video with Michael Fey PhD, a well know expert on Morgans and author of Top 100 Morgan VAMs as well as the Virtual Guide to Pricing Morgan Silver Dollars, that discusses this one-sided AT toning with examples (see attached for one) that I watched a while ago when I started my complete Morgan collection. I would recommend the video for anyone considering buying Morgans as it also discusses grading, varieties, values and common issues with Morgans.

We are talking about trying to assess the actual appearance and condition of a coin from one photograph of each side without the coin in-hand, which I would say is part "speculation" to begin with. 😉

Keep in mind those numbers were for lower grade proof coins or raw ones where you have to expect lower PF numbers. You can get wild jumps in pricing as you approach a PF-70, and there just isn't enough data from what I could find to really tell.

Buck up QA, other highly-reguarded members simply refer to terms like that as a "hypocorism" in common usage.

@Oldhoopsterit is interesting how much history you learn by researching certain coins you may be collecting, and little factoids like where the term "two bits" for a quarter came from.

Yea he meant 67+ with PCGS slabs. In addition to taking what dealers are saying with a grain of salt, as they are not likely to make a sale if they are critical of a coin someone has, also keep in mind some get blinded or fixated with the toning on coins as they are the latest craze. This can result in a failure to look closely at other things that may not be so readily apparent with or because of the toning. Like the very granular appearance, off color with no progression, possible AU slider grade rub marks and bag marks on the face. Again, I hope it's just hard to photograph conditions and it works out. Let us know.

Okay, so I guess that is an obscure reference to some of his coins and he doesn't need a big Indian guy to bust open a window.

QA I'm worried about you interacting with roosters again. Why not get some real ones? [the gold types, not the ones that wake you up at the crack of dawn 😀]

To me the surfaces, particularly the obverse, appear to have a very grainy or granular appearance which is often an indication of some type of cleaning or polishing in the past. Sometimes AT is used to try and cover that up which may be what happened to the obverse where both of those things may have been overdone. I hope it is just difficult to photograph conditions, where flow lines sometimes produce a similar appearance in some pics, and it looks different in-hand so it works out for you. And please do post the grading results since it is always educational to have that kind of feedback and to see how things worked out. 😉

Bottom line is that with modern machinery you get greater detail and a better strike with more energy, and why I looked at adding the more modern gold eagles first. Next is probably to add some Indian head half eagles as I just love the way they look and the incuse design.

The attached may help in evaluating the coin in hand with what appears to be MD.

I might agree as the appearance is off, particularly the obverse with an unusual color [blotchy without color progression, pull away or consistency] indicative of AT, and a granular like surface usually indicative of cleaning or polishing. There also appear to be some areas with color changes which may be rub marks and the obverse seems to also have what appears to be bag marks on the chin which is a no-go for higher grades (Morgans need a clean face/neck for higher grades) if it does make an MS grade even with that appearance. I hope I am wrong also and maybe it is just the photos. I also would not make decisions on what dealers are saying, and by 68.5 I assume he means a 68+

Very nice! If you gave her any key dates like certain early date CC or later date S min mark Morgans, like the 1895-S being discussed, I trust you conveyed the rarity and value.

You don't need mods to change all the text in that listing to "[Deleted]" so people will stop calling you a scammer (which you are as long as the coin is listed there) and then you can submit the coin to a TPG if you don't believe your own eyes looking at the edge.

This guy is ...

Well they sure didn't have modern CNC machines to cut the dies for that 1910 coin, so yea I think that would account for some greater detail of modern coins also in addition to there being more energy of the strike.

Yes, part of my quotes above were from that law [I clarified my comments with an edit identifying that act]. Legal jeopardy is an immensely complicated topic, and I don't think It really applies to the basic issue, so for now I am trying to just stick with quoting federal statues/interpretations or the CFR.

Tons is just the weight, which is only part of a strike. For older screw presses you might compare pressure or pounds/tons per square inch. For more modern equipment you need to compare energy imparted to a coin which is a function of both weight and speed or velocity which is basic physics. While present day equipment may not have as much force/weight as it did in the early 1900's, it is relatively comparable but operates at a much higher speed or velocity imparting a much greater amount of energy to a coin which determines the effectiveness of a strike. Think of ancient times when they would use a large heavy hammer to strike the dies. If a kid who could barely lift the hammer weakly hit the die with that hammer it would be a very weak strike. But if a large strong man (or woman as the case may be these days ) swung the same heavy hammer hard at the dies it would produce a much sharper strike. Same weight but significantly different velocity and thus energy imparted to the coin.