1881-S morgan toned

[KeeNoooo]

okay, i had this for sale in an ANACS holder. i decided to crack it and send it to NGC. with the bare pics, let me know how you will think it might grade... thanks

[Deerefan8420]

The toning looks much better in these pictures versus the prior photographs in the other thread. It is still somewhat difficult to judge the coin's surfaces based on the angles that the photos are taken at. But based on the pictures, I'd say 63, maybe 64. Still a good looking coin though.

[KeeNoooo]

im not criticising your opinion, i actually appreciate it.

im just curious how you could think as low as a 63.explain to me maybe where you think that? i have seen many 63 even 64 that have more dings and hits on the surfaces....?

but like you said, its probably the photos. i am not much of a photographer.

thanks for your opinion

[KeeNoooo]

the only real dings i see are on the cheak bone and the field under the "P" in "Pluribus" then on the reverse, above the eagles head and in the field next to left wing ( out left). Anything else i dont see as dings......thats just my opinion.

thoughts from anyone else?

 

i do welcome critisim but be prepared to be asked to justify. im not advanced like many of you

thanks

[jayman1970]

It looks like a 64 maybe with a + , nice looking Morgan!!

[Deerefan8420]

Based on the pictures provided, I see 2-3 deep cuts/hits on the cheek. There is also a large dent towards the bottom of Liberty's neck. There also appears to be some chatter to the left of the bust that is hidden under the toning. There's that spot there just in front of the "P" in Pluribus. The Reverse looks very nice, a few scuffs, but still very nice. That's what I see from the pictures provided. That is just my opinion. Better quality pictures could change my opinion as well.

 

This is still a nice coin though! Some collectors see a coin one way and another collector can see the exact same coin in another way.

[KeeNoooo]

deerfan, i appreciate your opinions. thank you. as well as everyone elses.

 

[jayman1970]

To me the cheek area looks pretty clean with just a couple small nicks. The dent in the lower neck is a design feature and not damage, I bet the few nicks in the cheek are hard to see in hand with the toning! Nice looking Morgan.

[mikew148]

Looks like a 64 from here. It's hard to get a feel for the luster/toning, probably because of the lighting. Even the reverse looks a little muted in the pics and I'm guessing it has quite a bit of luster in hand.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb because I think this coin has much more "life" in hand.

 

64*

 

 

[johnny9434]

ill go ms 64 as well. jmo

[yonico]

Technically it has MS64 ( maybe 64+) sharpness.

The color is a different story. I don't like it and I don't think it's NT.

[KeeNoooo]

thanks everyone. it goes out to Sarasota tomorrow along with some others that need grading

[brg5658]

Technically it has MS64 ( maybe 64+) sharpness.

The color is a different story. I don't like it and I don't think it's NT.

 

It looks completely natural to me. The pull-away toning on the lower stars and the date are pretty much impossible to "bake" features, and I think there is almost no chance this will come back as artificial toned. Just my personal opinion, but I also find it quite attractive.

 

I'm not sure what NGC will say, but I'd have no problem with this coin in an MS65 holder. It's a no-brainer MS64 coin at least IMO. Nice booming luster, very few abrasions, and great eye-appeal. (thumbs u

[yonico]

Technically it has MS64 ( maybe 64+) sharpness.

The color is a different story. I don't like it and I don't think it's NT.

 

It looks completely natural to me. The pull-away toning on the lower stars and the date are pretty much impossible to "bake" features, and I think there is almost no chance this will come back as artificial toned. Just my personal opinion, but I also find it quite attractive.

 

I'm not sure what NGC will say, but I'd have no problem with this coin in an MS65 holder. It's a no-brainer MS64 coin at least IMO. Nice booming luster, very few abrasions, and great eye-appeal. (thumbs u

 

Ok first, I really hope your ARE right and this coin grades problem free. I don't think with these marks on the cheek (one is deep) and one on the neck, that it would grade 65. Especially this date.

I'm not sure what is it by PLURIBUS (before P, under L, U, and between U-R) in the first pic, or around the date and the last 6 stars (first and 3rd pic), but It just looks weird to me.

Also, I will agree that the toning is eye appealing (when I say "I don't like the toning" I don't mean it's "not pretty". I meant to say I'm not sure i like the way it was created), but where do you see "booming luster" on the obverse? Looks like the reverse has tons of luster, but obverse really does not.

[BillJones]

The 1881-S dollar is one of the easiest of all Morgan dollars to find in high grade, both from the aspects of luster and sharp strike and the aspects of smooth surfaces and an absence of marks. For those reasons I don’t think that this piece will make MS-65. One can get lucky, of course, but with an 1881-S you have to get DARN lucky to get a generous grade. This date is actually common in true MS-65. When you see the “type grade prices” on the Gray Sheet, they are talking about the 1881-S more than any other date and mint mark combination.

[brg5658]

Technically it has MS64 ( maybe 64+) sharpness.

The color is a different story. I don't like it and I don't think it's NT.

 

It looks completely natural to me. The pull-away toning on the lower stars and the date are pretty much impossible to "bake" features, and I think there is almost no chance this will come back as artificial toned. Just my personal opinion, but I also find it quite attractive.

 

I'm not sure what NGC will say, but I'd have no problem with this coin in an MS65 holder. It's a no-brainer MS64 coin at least IMO. Nice booming luster, very few abrasions, and great eye-appeal. (thumbs u

 

Ok first, I really hope your ARE right and this coin grades problem free. I don't think with these marks on the cheek (one is deep) and one on the neck, that it would grade 65. Especially this date.

I'm not sure what is it by PLURIBUS (before P, under L, U, and between U-R) in the first pic, or around the date and the last 6 stars (first and 3rd pic), but It just looks weird to me.

Also, I will agree that the toning is eye appealing (when I say "I don't like the toning" I don't mean it's "not pretty". I meant to say I'm not sure i like the way it was created), but where do you see "booming luster" on the obverse? Looks like the reverse has tons of luster, but obverse really does not.

 

I don't see anything I'd call a "deep" mark on the cheek. I don't see anything on the neck at all. That divet on the left side about 2/3 way down is a part of the design, not a mark. As abrasions go, I don't see anything that would preclude a 65. Morgans aren't my specialty, but nonetheless, I'd say no way this is a 63. Even if it comes back in a 63 holder, I still contend it's at least a no-brainer 64. If what Kryptonite has been saying recently, NGC is in a really strict rut on grading, particularly Morgans.

 

What you're seeing around those last 6 stars is called "pull-away" toning. That's one of the best markers for natural toning. You can also see this around the digits of the date. Regarding the other small location around PLUR, I feel you're "micro-analyzing" the pictures. I see no signs of "funny toning".

 

As for luster, please realize that those obverse images are taken under very abnormal lighting conditions to highlight the toning. The luster of the reverse seems to be there, but there is no straight on well-lit obverse image like the reverse one that highlights the luster. Having seen thousands of poorly lit images, I'm pretty sure that properly lit the obverse would exhibit full cartwheel luster that I would classify as "booming".

 

 

 

 

[yonico]

1. I did say it looked sharp enough for 64, I even said it might be 64+ but I DO NOT think its a 65.

 

2. I know what's part of the design on the neck, I referred to the mark TO THE LEFT OF IT, in the first pic.

 

3. The mark closest to the sideburns area is deeper than the other few on the cheek, you can clearly see it.

 

4. I'm not micro analyzing the pics, just saying what I see in the pics. To ASSUME that the luster "would be there in a full cartwheel" if the pic was taken under "proper lighting" seems micro analyzing if not guessing..

 

5. To add to what BillJones said, this is why I said in my previous comment that I don't think it will go 65, and added: "especially this date". Maybe if it was a CC gsa Morgan it will be sharp enough for MS65.

 

Then again, this is just my opinion. And I'm far FAR from expert. Just what I think..

[KeeNoooo]

I appreciate all the comments.....

Question for good photographers.....what is the best way to take pictures of coins to capture the details, luster, AND the toning?

Thanks

Nick

[mikew148]

I have a Morgan Dollar similar, I think, to the Dollar you posted here. This coin is the reason I guessed a 64* grade for your coin.

 

The toning can look very unnatural under poor lighting. Factor in the inability to focus properly when holding a coin in your hand and it makes for a much tougher GTG picture.

 

This coin is graded 64* by NGC. (although you couldn't tell it by the I phone picture)

 

What kind of camera did you use to take your pictures?

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Technically it has MS64 ( maybe 64+) sharpness.

The color is a different story. I don't like it and I don't think it's NT.

 

It looks completely natural to me. The pull-away toning on the lower stars and the date are pretty much impossible to "bake" features, and I think there is almost no chance this will come back as artificial toned. Just my personal opinion, but I also find it quite attractive.

 

I agree about the pull away toning around the stars and date, and there is even a bit of the so called "elevation chromatics" phenomenon, both of which are difficult to replicate in the lab (and I have never seen an AT specimen that had these characteristics). I think a lot of what people are questioning is more the result of poor lighting than chemical enhancement. I think the coin is likely NT but would need an in hand examination (or additional pictures) to confirm. I would love to see additional images using normal lighting conditions.

 

[KeeNoooo]

I used a Nikon S6100 with macro mode. But I don't know the best lighting to use.

[mikew148]

I've been where you are and the best advice that was given to me - I'm going to give you.

 

Buy the book - Numismatic Photography 2nd Edition by Mark Goodman. This book covers it all. It has a complete section on lighting. Not only what type of lights but the proper use to achieve the desired effect. For $25 it's one of the most information packed books you could hope to buy.

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I've been where you are and the best advice that was given to me - I'm going to give you.

 

Buy the book - Numismatic Photography 2nd Edition by Mark Goodman. This book covers it all. It has a complete section on lighting. Not only what type of lights but the proper use to achieve the desired effect. For $25 it's one of the most information packed books you could hope to buy.

 

 

It is a GREAT book.

[brg5658]

The type of lights (CFL, Halogen, LED, Incandescent, etc) are not all that important. What's the most important is that you get a LOT of light on the coin.

 

The camera (at least a DSLR and many point and shoots) can make up for the different temperatures of lighting source by setting the white balance correctly.

 

To get light consistently on the coin, the coin needs to be flat and on a stationary surface (i.e., a copy stand). Hand held images will never be well lit. Yes, they may work to get the "gist" of what you want to show, but they will not be in focus throughout and they will not be properly lit by the minimum of 2, and sometimes 4 point light sources necessary to take proper images.

 

You might want to check out this thread that I wrote up a couple months ago. The short of it is, your lights should be at a high angle, close to the lens, and there should be enough of them to light up the fields and devices with minimal shadows.

 

-Brandon