AT or NT tones Morgans here?

[TheCount]

 

 

i have a few morgans which are very obviously AT. with these 2 i am not sure.... the toning is not dull and pretty translucent, nice gradual color changes... any experts here? thanks!

 

 

[L1ncolnF4n]

First one looks possibly cleaned, and more like AT. Second looks NT to me.

[SWNGC]

First one looks possibly cleaned, and more like AT. Second looks NT to me.

 

Agreed, First one looks like a coin that's been dipped to death and then AT... Second appears NT

[BillJones]

I tend to agree with the others, although you show both sides or at least give us the date and mint of the pieces. Some Morgan dollars, often from the New Orleans mint, are dull from the get-go. Therefore they could have dull luster under the toning and still be original.

[Raider34]

The second coin looks NT to me. The first one, might be AT, or dipped, and it retoned naturally (still probably not market acceptable). What does the reverse look like?

[Coindude]

I'm in agreement with everyone here... AT / NT.

[TheCount]

what actually happens when NGC gets a, lets say, MS 64 morgan, but with AT? just a UNC details grade? that would suck! better to break it out then and give it a quick dip...

[$ilverHawk]

Always tough to grade from pics. 86 is known for a strong strike. Looks like an easy 65. Someone tried to add bonus points by ATing it. Not a huge difference 64-65.

 

82 is known for an average strike. Strike is better than average MS65, but field and focal point hits may bring it down. The pic you show says MS65. Big difference between 64 and 65. Looks natural to me from pics.

[michael]

AT and AT

[Mark T]

Both are AT . The top one is obvious the bottom one not so much based on your pictures.

 

However if you look at the sellers picture on EBAy you can see that the 1882-S is without a doubt AT.

 

Picture attached.

 

[TheCount]

the coin looks nothing like in that picture in hand.....

[jgrinz]

AT

AT

 

[gbsten]

The one looks like a perfect example of a poor "liver of sulphur" job. The other I don't know, maybe NT, maybe a good "liver of sulphur" job. Looks painted.

[Coindude]

I have to agree, the new evidence definitely shows AT.

[TomB]

I don't like the look of either coin, but some of this might be due to the lighting of the images.

[James_OldeTowne]

I would guess AT on #1, PVC damage on #2.

[Bruceswar]

I don't like the look of either coin, but some of this might be due to the lighting of the images.

 

That was what I was thinking first time I seen these coins.

[coinman23885-migration]

1) AT dipped?

2.) NT

[Mark T]

Coinman please check out my post with the original EBAY picture of this coin .

Based on the sellers EBAy picture I would say coin number 2 is also AT .

 

[coinman23885-migration]

Coinman please check out my post with the original EBAY picture of this coin .

Based on the sellers EBAy picture I would say coin number 2 is also AT .

 

I didn't see your original post; after having seen the original eBay photos, I'd agree with you that number 2 is definitely artificially toned as well. I think this should be a good lesson for the Count: with modern photography you can distort any image deceptively!

[coinman23885-migration]

what actually happens when NGC gets a, lets say, MS 64 morgan, but with AT? just a UNC details grade? that would suck! better to break it out then and give it a quick dip...

 

I would be careful; artificial toning is often used to cover up major problems. The artificial toning may be the least of your worries.