• 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.

NEWP from FUN (delayed for images)

Started by PLM,

19 posts in this topic

jom

jom

Posted
Posted
Very nice toners. The fingerprint in the '03 is a shame.

 

Oddly those, for the most part, don't bother me. I don't know why...I know a LOT of people dislike it but...for whatever reason...the finger print makes it look more "authentic" or some such. Weird I know...

 

Love both coins...show the reverses!

 

jom

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

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

Love the 1900-O. Fantastic toning on that one, and fully deserving of the star.

 

The 03-O is overgraded in my opinion, but it is an opinion that many don't share. A large, prominently placed fingerprint smack-dab across the obverse is, in my opinion, incredibly unsightly, and limits the grade to a maximum of 64. Again, this is an opinion that many do not share - but a coin with a fingerprint should (almost) never be considered for a gem grade or a star. Plenty of people like them though (and, except for the fingerprint, that looks like a really nice coin).

 

Do you have pics of the reverses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brg5658

brg5658

Posted
Posted
Love the 1900-O. Fantastic toning on that one, and fully deserving of the star.

 

The 03-O is overgraded in my opinion, but it is an opinion that many don't share. A large, prominently placed fingerprint smack-dab across the obverse is, in my opinion, incredibly unsightly, and limits the grade to a maximum of 64. Again, this is an opinion that many do not share - but a coin with a fingerprint should (almost) never be considered for a gem grade or a star. Plenty of people like them though (and, except for the fingerprint, that looks like a really nice coin).

 

Do you have pics of the reverses?

 

I'm pretty sure that's not in the grading standards anywhere. lol

 

That's almost akin to me saying that I don't like blue toning, so that should limit the grade of all blue coins to MS62. :devil:

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

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted
Love the 1900-O. Fantastic toning on that one, and fully deserving of the star.

 

The 03-O is overgraded in my opinion, but it is an opinion that many don't share. A large, prominently placed fingerprint smack-dab across the obverse is, in my opinion, incredibly unsightly, and limits the grade to a maximum of 64. Again, this is an opinion that many do not share - but a coin with a fingerprint should (almost) never be considered for a gem grade or a star. Plenty of people like them though (and, except for the fingerprint, that looks like a really nice coin).

 

Do you have pics of the reverses?

 

I'm pretty sure that's not in the grading standards anywhere. lol

 

That's almost akin to me saying that I don't like blue toning, so that should limit the grade of all blue coins to MS62. :devil:

 

That's why I made sure to clarify that it is my own personal standard. You are correct, it is not in the official standards anywhere. What is mentioned in the grading standards is "eye appeal," and it is well known that negative eye appeal will subtract from the grade. Eye appeal is incredibly subjective, and everyone has their own opinion on positive and negative eye appeal. I find fingerprints to be so overwhelmingly negative in their eye appeal on potentiallly gem coins that I have chosen to subtract points from the grade.

 

But like I said, plenty of people don't mind fingerprints, some people even like them. The TPGs don't seem to care.

 

To be even clearer what I mean, what I really intend to say is "I would not pay higher than a 64 price for any coin with a very large fingerprint." You can put any number you want on the plastic, but the price its worth is really what we are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brg5658

brg5658

Posted
Posted
Love the 1900-O. Fantastic toning on that one, and fully deserving of the star.

 

The 03-O is overgraded in my opinion, but it is an opinion that many don't share. A large, prominently placed fingerprint smack-dab across the obverse is, in my opinion, incredibly unsightly, and limits the grade to a maximum of 64. Again, this is an opinion that many do not share - but a coin with a fingerprint should (almost) never be considered for a gem grade or a star. Plenty of people like them though (and, except for the fingerprint, that looks like a really nice coin).

 

Do you have pics of the reverses?

 

I'm pretty sure that's not in the grading standards anywhere. lol

 

That's almost akin to me saying that I don't like blue toning, so that should limit the grade of all blue coins to MS62. :devil:

 

That's why I made sure to clarify that it is my own personal standard. You are correct, it is not in the official standards anywhere. What is mentioned in the grading standards is "eye appeal," and it is well known that negative eye appeal will subtract from the grade. Eye appeal is incredibly subjective, and everyone has their own opinion on positive and negative eye appeal. I find fingerprints to be so overwhelmingly negative in their eye appeal on potentiallly gem coins that I have chosen to subtract points from the grade.

 

But like I said, plenty of people don't mind fingerprints, some people even like them. The TPGs don't seem to care.

 

To be even clearer what I mean, what I really intend to say is "I would not pay higher than a 64 price for any coin with a very large fingerprint." You can put any number you want on the plastic, but the price its worth is really what we are talking about.

 

I agree with you on most counts, but if you shrink down that image of the Morgan to actual size of a dollar coin in hand, the fingerprint is hardly even noticeable. The coin has otherwise great eye appeal (to me anyway). I don't see why a hardly noticeable fingerprint should hold a coin back to MS64 in a dogmatic/draconian way. We're not talking MS68 here -- it's graded MS65. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
Posted
I agree with you on most counts, but if you shrink down that image of the Morgan to actual size of a dollar coin in hand, the fingerprint is hardly even noticeable. The coin has otherwise great eye appeal (to me anyway). I don't see why a hardly noticeable fingerprint should hold a coin back to MS64 in a dogmatic/draconian way. We're not talking MS68 here -- it's graded MS65. :)

 

I agree that it really shouldn't affect the grade all that much. Besides...who cares? You either like the coin or you don't...and you'll pay the appropriate price...or not.

 

All these discussions about what coins should be in what holder or whatever is really just way over the top, IMO. We all have "personal standards" and that is the problem with coin grading: everyone sees a coin differently...even if only slightly. To me it comes down to what I'll pay because in the long run that's really all that matters ie My Wallet.

 

I do like the 1900-O more but that is because I find the toning more attractive not because the other one has a fingerprint. JMO of course.

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PLM

PLM

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Love the 1900-O. Fantastic toning on that one, and fully deserving of the star.

 

The 03-O is overgraded in my opinion, but it is an opinion that many don't share. A large, prominently placed fingerprint smack-dab across the obverse is, in my opinion, incredibly unsightly, and limits the grade to a maximum of 64. Again, this is an opinion that many do not share - but a coin with a fingerprint should (almost) never be considered for a gem grade or a star. Plenty of people like them though (and, except for the fingerprint, that looks like a really nice coin).

 

Do you have pics of the reverses?

 

I'm pretty sure that's not in the grading standards anywhere. lol

 

That's almost akin to me saying that I don't like blue toning, so that should limit the grade of all blue coins to MS62. :devil:

 

That's why I made sure to clarify that it is my own personal standard. You are correct, it is not in the official standards anywhere. What is mentioned in the grading standards is "eye appeal," and it is well known that negative eye appeal will subtract from the grade. Eye appeal is incredibly subjective, and everyone has their own opinion on positive and negative eye appeal. I find fingerprints to be so overwhelmingly negative in their eye appeal on potentiallly gem coins that I have chosen to subtract points from the grade.

 

But like I said, plenty of people don't mind fingerprints, some people even like them. The TPGs don't seem to care.

 

To be even clearer what I mean, what I really intend to say is "I would not pay higher than a 64 price for any coin with a very large fingerprint." You can put any number you want on the plastic, but the price its worth is really what we are talking about.

 

I agree with you on most counts, but if you shrink down that image of the Morgan to actual size of a dollar coin in hand, the fingerprint is hardly even noticeable. The coin has otherwise great eye appeal (to me anyway). I don't see why a hardly noticeable fingerprint should hold a coin back to MS64 in a dogmatic/draconian way. We're not talking MS68 here -- it's graded MS65. :)

 

For Walkerfan, Keyman, wdrob, Skyman, and all posters who indicated they liked the coins -- thank you.

 

For physics-fan3.14 I agree with you in not liking fingerprints on my coins. In general it is a deal breaker with me. However when I saw this coin my reaction was WOW. And the I noticed it was a 1903-O. All from above the display case.

A closer look showed the fingerprint. Not very noticeable to the naked eye, but present. I would have passed on any more common date toner, but finding a nicely toned 1903-O is extremely difficult. This is the nicest 1903-O (or 1903-P)I recall seeing in over 20 years of collecting toned dollars. So I grabbed it immediately. It was graded pre star and I believe it would stand a good chance at starring. It is at least borderline. To see how tough that is NGC has awarded 7 stars (1 MS63 and 5 MS66 and 1 MS64+) out of a total of 7118 graded in all grades. I doubt I will have a chance to improve on this coin.

 

Included is the reverse and an image in the slab I think you can see the "pop" of the coin-it is somewhat proof like. 1903Oslabrev_zps63cfb4f7.jpg[/img]

1903Oslab_zps713dbeb6.jpg[/img]

Here is the 1900-O reverse

f3529eca-3520-4677-8308-d272e51c9a6d_zps09dc29a8.jpg[/img]

 

Thanks for all input!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrkbrown8709

mrkbrown8709

Posted
Posted
Very nice toners. The fingerprint in the '03 is a shame.

 

Oddly those, for the most part, don't bother me. I don't know why...I know a LOT of people dislike it but...for whatever reason...the finger print makes it look more "authentic" or some such. Weird I know...

 

Love both coins...show the reverses!

 

jom

 

Personally the 1903-O could have 2 fingerprints on it being Ms65 and I would still own it lol. I haven't seen many tones 03-O

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kryptonitecomics

kryptonitecomics

Posted
Posted

I know some folks don't like prints from an eye appeal standpoint but I never understood how anyone in their right mind could want to down grade the coin for a print. After all the print is just toning that the coin acquired in a unique pattern due to the oils on our skin. It would be the same as lower the grade on a textile toner or an end roll toned coin....again in it's simplest form it's a toning pattern...nothing more and nothing less. I think both coins look great in hand and I think Phil picked up some winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
Posted

In all honesty; I noticed the fingerprint on the '03 O but it is very subtle looking to me (not prominent, at all). I would have no problem owning this coin and I can't stand fingerprints. This one does not detract much, IMHO, as it is faint. Beautiful unique plum color, BTW. I really like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing