• 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.

1891-s Morgan. Star * worthy????

Started by FILTHYHOARD,

30 posts in this topic

FILTHYHOARD

FILTHYHOARD

Posted
Posted

In the neverending battle of good vs. evil, Coke or Pepsi, star worthy or not,

I present this 1891-s Morgan.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's hard to judge a coin based solely on images and not actually seeing the coin in hand, so please enlighten me & tell me what I'm missing. I just don't see that ★

1891sobv.jpg

1891srev.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

Your questions are easily answered.

 

Good always prevails over evil!

Why do they still make Pepsi? Coke obviously wins!

 

And no, that coin does not even closely deserve a star based on those pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsshog40

bsshog40

Posted
Posted

As already stated, hard to tell by pics, but I was wondering does it look like there may be a little cameo on this coin? If so, that may have been the reason for a star. If no cameo, then I'm not seeing where the star came from either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

Although I tend to prefer coins with originality, I must admit that this coin is in need of a good dip. It doesn't look star worthy to me and the coloring is actually negative in terms of eye appeal. It looks like an improper dip job left dip residue on the coin to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Mechanical error?

Lance.

 

Although I don't think the coin would deserve a plus designation, perhaps they meant 65+.

 

I doubt it. Either they got it wrong, or much more likely, there is a very simple explanation. And that is, that the coin looks much more appealing in hand.

 

By now, most of you folks should have a pretty darned good idea about how different, better or worse coins can look in images, compared to what they really look like. Why is it so difficult to accept the liklihood that that's what's taking place here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keigwin

Keigwin

Posted
Posted
By now, most of you folks should have a pretty darned good idea about how different, better or worse coins can look in images, compared to what they really look like. Why is it so difficult to accept the liklihood that that's what's taking place here?

Very true, Mark.

 

We've seen very many starred coins that were convincing from the images that I guess we're conditioned when one doesn't send us.

Lance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mkman123

mkman123

Posted
Posted

we all know from examples posted by Mark of previous coins that images don't show the true color/look of some coins. I bet this coin might look dmpl in person or something

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FILTHYHOARD

FILTHYHOARD

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Using the larger images that I posted, you can definitely notice some die polishing lines, so it probably does have a certain PL quality to it. I just don't care for the "toning". Normally I'm a crusty aficionado , but this one doesn't do it for me. I've been looking for a nice 1891-s with eye appeal, but the search will have to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Larger pics do help... looks very solid for the grade and hence the * - though personally, I don't like the toning.

 

The star supposedly has nothing to do with "solid for the grade" - it is said to signify extraordinary eye-appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted
In the neverending battle of good vs. evil, Coke or Pepsi, star worthy or not,

I present this 1891-s Morgan.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's hard to judge a coin based solely on images and not actually seeing the coin in hand, so please enlighten me & tell me what I'm missing. I just don't see that ★

I have a different interpretation, and again, this is based on past experience from such photos. The coin is an 1891-S, and some coins for that particular issue were struck from a die that was basined (RWB, am I using the correct term?) slightly different from others of that same date, resulting in luster that is tough to explain, especially from terrible, flat photos. I call it "deeply dished" luster. It isn't quite prooflike, but dances around the devices in a spectacular fashion much unlike normal brilliant luster.

 

I'd bet this one of those coins, based on the die polish visible in the fields, and adding to that past experience. In short, I'd bet the luster is a whole lot more amazing in-hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
Posted

In the OP the obverse looks like it might have some "blast" luster showing through the toning...giving it a "portrait" look. Maybe that's the reason for the STAR. (shrug)

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brg5658

brg5658

Posted
Posted

Why do they still make Pepsi? Coke obviously wins!

 

I have no comment about the star-worthiness of the coin, but I take great issue with this comment.

 

Coke sucks...Pepsi is FAR better. Sorry Jason, I think it's your "southern" genetics that have you confused. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
Posted

Why do they still make Pepsi? Coke obviously wins!

 

I have no comment about the star-worthiness of the coin, but I take great issue with this comment.

 

Coke sucks...Pepsi is FAR better. Sorry Jason, I think it's your "southern" genetics that have you confused. ;)

 

I prefer Coke but I usually just buy whatever's on sale. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBC

CBC

Posted
Posted

I have seen some Star designated coins that obviously deserved the status, and more than a few that I consider plain ugly. I guess the Star on this one comes from the hint of proof-like contrast; I don't think the toning would get it there.

 

With or without the Star, it's still a nice Morgan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
Posted

Why do they still make Pepsi? Coke obviously wins!

 

I have no comment about the star-worthiness of the coin, but I take great issue with this comment.

 

Coke sucks...Pepsi is FAR better. Sorry Jason, I think it's your "southern" genetics that have you confused. ;)

 

Bah! Coke rules!

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

Why do they still make Pepsi? Coke obviously wins!

 

I have no comment about the star-worthiness of the coin, but I take great issue with this comment.

 

Coke sucks...Pepsi is FAR better. Sorry Jason, I think it's your "southern" genetics that have you confused. ;)

 

Eh, you're entitled to your opinion I guess. You are also entitled to be wrong. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brg5658

brg5658

Posted
Posted

Why do they still make Pepsi? Coke obviously wins!

 

I have no comment about the star-worthiness of the coin, but I take great issue with this comment.

 

Coke sucks...Pepsi is FAR better. Sorry Jason, I think it's your "southern" genetics that have you confused. ;)

 

Eh, you're entitled to your opinion I guess. You are also entitled to be wrong. :P

 

I'll let you know if and when that day comes... :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing