• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Offer a grade on this Morgan.........

Started by relicsncoins,

20 posts in this topic

kryptonitecomics

kryptonitecomics

Posted
Posted

Looks like Diffused lighting which is going to hide most of the contact marks that may be present....do you have a luster shot which might show us any bagmarks present?

 

The coin looks very clean in the images you provided and I can't see enough marks to call it lower than MS65...but maybe you could point out any visable flaws that might now be visable due to the toning. I also suspect that this coin might be bb for questionable color but it certainly doesn't scream AT to me but the orange looks a bit different then I am used to seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
relicsncoins

relicsncoins

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Looks like Diffused lighting which is going to hide most of the contact marks that may be present....do you have a luster shot which might show us any bagmarks present?

 

The coin looks very clean in the images you provided and I can't see enough marks to call it lower than MS65...but maybe you could point out any visable flaws that might now be visable due to the toning. I also suspect that this coin might be bb for questionable color but it certainly doesn't scream AT to me but the orange looks a bit different then I am used to seeing.

 

The coin is prooflike, so a luster shot might be difficult. I'll try shooting some new photos later today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MARNICK

MARNICK

Posted
Posted

THERES JUST SOMETHING ABOUT THE OBVERSE THATS HOLDING ME BACK. FROM WHAT I SEE IS MS 65 ON THE OBVERSE AND MS 66 PL ON THE REVERSE. I THINK YOU'LL GET AN MS 65 PL.

THIS IS JUST ONE MANS OPINION.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark T

Mark T

Posted
Posted

Nice coin , looks like a finger print on the face but it is probably just the way the coin toned. Looks PL but it could be the picture.

I have seen coins of this color in PCGS and NGC slabs .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted
Looks like Diffused lighting which is going to hide most of the contact marks that may be present....do you have a luster shot which might show us any bagmarks present?

 

The coin looks very clean in the images you provided and I can't see enough marks to call it lower than MS65...but maybe you could point out any visable flaws that might now be visable due to the toning. I also suspect that this coin might be bb for questionable color but it certainly doesn't scream AT to me but the orange looks a bit different then I am used to seeing.

 

Shane, I have a number of the Tid-E-Bowls that look similar to this, and they are slabbed by both NGC & PCGS. Is it possible that the brilliant orange is due to the DMPL surface beneath it? If Liberty's face is as clean beneath the toning as it appears, then I see no reason why it shouldn't get 66PL.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHABSENTIA

CHABSENTIA

Posted
Posted

The coin looks proof like on the reverse. I have seen pictures of Morgans in PCGS and NGC holders with the color on the obverse. APMEX had an 1879 in an NGC holder and referred to it as a "rose" color. It is hard to tell from just a picture of a raw coin. If it is not artificial toning then I would expect to see it grade as an MS65PL so it is certainly worth sending in to be graded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kryptonitecomics

kryptonitecomics

Posted
Posted
Looks like Diffused lighting which is going to hide most of the contact marks that may be present....do you have a luster shot which might show us any bagmarks present?

 

The coin looks very clean in the images you provided and I can't see enough marks to call it lower than MS65...but maybe you could point out any visable flaws that might now be visable due to the toning. I also suspect that this coin might be bb for questionable color but it certainly doesn't scream AT to me but the orange looks a bit different then I am used to seeing.

 

Shane, I have a number of the Tid-E-Bowls that look similar to this, and they are slabbed by both NGC & PCGS. Is it possible that the brilliant orange is due to the DMPL surface beneath it? If Liberty's face is as clean beneath the toning as it appears, then I see no reason why it shouldn't get 66PL.

 

Chris

 

 

Chris I know of dozens of those same coins that have been and are still getting body bagged by the top TPGs becuase the color doesn't look natural......although technically coins in these holders are usually tagged as NT....the graders don't get the luxury of knowing where the coins came from so if it looks questionable....especially right now then it will end up in an NCS or Genuine holder.

 

I actually like the coin and would buy it as NT....but I would imagine the coin would be BBd if sent in right now.....hope I am wrong hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted
Looks like Diffused lighting which is going to hide most of the contact marks that may be present....do you have a luster shot which might show us any bagmarks present?

 

The coin looks very clean in the images you provided and I can't see enough marks to call it lower than MS65...but maybe you could point out any visable flaws that might now be visable due to the toning. I also suspect that this coin might be bb for questionable color but it certainly doesn't scream AT to me but the orange looks a bit different then I am used to seeing.

 

Shane, I have a number of the Tid-E-Bowls that look similar to this, and they are slabbed by both NGC & PCGS. Is it possible that the brilliant orange is due to the DMPL surface beneath it? If Liberty's face is as clean beneath the toning as it appears, then I see no reason why it shouldn't get 66PL.

 

Chris

 

 

Chris I know of dozens of those same coins that have been and are still getting body bagged by the top TPGs becuase the color doesn't look natural......although technically coins in these holders are usually tagged as NT....the graders don't get the luxury of knowing where the coins came from so if it looks questionable....especially right now then it will end up in an NCS or Genuine holder.

 

I actually like the coin and would buy it as NT....but I would imagine the coin would be BBd if sent in right now.....hope I am wrong hm

 

Well, we shall see! It just happens that I am working on an NGC submission to take with me to FUN, and one is an 1885 that PCGS BB'ed for "Questionable Color". But, I'm prepared for the possibility of NGC claiming it to be AT because I'm holding in my hand right now, three others (1883, 1884O & 1885) that have practically identical toning which NGC had slabbed. Whaddaya think about them apples?

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kryptonitecomics

kryptonitecomics

Posted
Posted
Looks like Diffused lighting which is going to hide most of the contact marks that may be present....do you have a luster shot which might show us any bagmarks present?

 

The coin looks very clean in the images you provided and I can't see enough marks to call it lower than MS65...but maybe you could point out any visable flaws that might now be visable due to the toning. I also suspect that this coin might be bb for questionable color but it certainly doesn't scream AT to me but the orange looks a bit different then I am used to seeing.

 

Shane, I have a number of the Tid-E-Bowls that look similar to this, and they are slabbed by both NGC & PCGS. Is it possible that the brilliant orange is due to the DMPL surface beneath it? If Liberty's face is as clean beneath the toning as it appears, then I see no reason why it shouldn't get 66PL.

 

Chris

 

 

Chris I know of dozens of those same coins that have been and are still getting body bagged by the top TPGs becuase the color doesn't look natural......although technically coins in these holders are usually tagged as NT....the graders don't get the luxury of knowing where the coins came from so if it looks questionable....especially right now then it will end up in an NCS or Genuine holder.

 

I actually like the coin and would buy it as NT....but I would imagine the coin would be BBd if sent in right now.....hope I am wrong hm

 

Well, we shall see! It just happens that I am working on an NGC submission to take with me to FUN, and one is an 1885 that PCGS BB'ed for "Questionable Color". But, I'm prepared for the possibility of NGC claiming it to be AT because I'm holding in my hand right now, three others (1883, 1884O & 1885) that have practically identical toning which NGC had slabbed. Whaddaya think about them apples?

 

Chris

 

 

I wish you the best of luck and I am going to take the plunge as well and probably send off 15 or 20 toned coins myself to NGC (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCount

TheCount

Posted
Posted

the obverse looks like there has been the slighest amount of wear, the reverse is very clean and nice. PL for sure. 98 percent sure its NT too. if the cheeks are very clean its a 65...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing