in response to key largo coins post ATS

[jpcienkus]

Great coin here but needs more coverage of the coin to make Monster. However in the MS64 grade it is free of distractions

 

 

I disagree with the statement that it's free of distractions. I don't like the cheek and the marks interrupt the vivid hot pink toning. The right field also has luster breaks that interrupt the toning. The colors are vivid, no doubt, but I prefer other coins you've posted.

[johnny9434]

Actually they are readily available at Major shows for major asking prices (thumbs u

 

Well somebody should grab them from the major circuit for folks that cant fly around to every major circuit. (thumbs u

Let us know how you make out doing this (thumbs u

[dimefreak]

Great coin here but needs more coverage of the coin to make Monster. However in the MS64 grade it is free of distractions

 

 

I disagree with the statement that it's free of distractions. I don't like the cheek and the marks interrupt the vivid hot pink toning. The right field also has luster breaks that interrupt the toning. The colors are vivid, no doubt, but I prefer other coins you've posted.

 

Not sure Shane remembers this coin or not. But I can assure you that there are zero luster breaks... this coin is ridiculously lustrous... but as said before to each there own

[jpcienkus]

Great coin here but needs more coverage of the coin to make Monster. However in the MS64 grade it is free of distractions

 

 

I disagree with the statement that it's free of distractions. I don't like the cheek and the marks interrupt the vivid hot pink toning. The right field also has luster breaks that interrupt the toning. The colors are vivid, no doubt, but I prefer other coins you've posted.

 

Not sure Shane remembers this coin or not. But I can assure you that there are zero luster breaks... this coin is ridiculously lustrous... but as said before to each there own

 

Okay, so let's say the luster is ridiculous, what is it about the color that makes this a Monster in your eyes (not saying it's not)? You mentioned it needs more coverage. So for it to be a Monster, would you need 100% coverage, at least 5 colors, etc...? Would the colors need to be neon?

[kryptonitecomics]

Shane's giving away monster toners as gifts? Wait...........wut?

 

 

Oh you don't know the secret handshake do you....

[dimefreak]

Great coin here but needs more coverage of the coin to make Monster. However in the MS64 grade it is free of distractions

 

 

I disagree with the statement that it's free of distractions. I don't like the cheek and the marks interrupt the vivid hot pink toning. The right field also has luster breaks that interrupt the toning. The colors are vivid, no doubt, but I prefer other coins you've posted.

 

Not sure Shane remembers this coin or not. But I can assure you that there are zero luster breaks... this coin is ridiculously lustrous... but as said before to each there own

 

Okay, so let's say the luster is ridiculous, what is it about the color that makes this a Monster in your eyes (not saying it's not)? You mentioned it needs more coverage. So for it to be a Monster, would you need 100% coverage, at least 5 colors, etc...? Would the colors need to be neon?

 

Its a monster when you look at it and don't have to ask if its a monster. There are single colored and two colored monsters. Fireballs typically are two colors. The main things folks don't take into consideration is "pop" light blue and tan aren't going to typically pop off a coin. Textile always seems to help... there are EORs that don't have 100% coverage but the pattern us awesome and makes it a monster. But I can assure you if one thing. If you have to ask if this is a monster it likely is not.

[kryptonitecomics]

The two criteria that I will start with, and which I think most will agree with, are as follows:

 

1. The coin must be at least MS-66 (although I've heard plenty of people use 67 as the minimum grade).

 

2. The coin must have blazing above average luster, even under/through the toning.

 

I see no reason why a "monster" needs to grade at least MS66. I believe that to be an arbitrary, needless and pointless cutoff. I've seen plenty of MS65 and MS64 monsters and some others graded lower than that.

 

I also don't see a practical way to define "monster". Different people with different experience, perceptions, perspectives and tastes will be viewing and assessing them. Unless you want to use something like "One look at a 'monster' will cause even a highly experienced/knowledgeable toning enthusiast to say 'wow' or something similar".

 

 

I couldn't agree more...as a matter of fact this is the first thread I have ever seen where a grade cut off was given with regards to a coin being a monster. As I see it there are two kids of monsters...

 

1. Condition rarities whether toned or untoned.

2. Rainbow toned coins

 

With regards to #2 above....a coin can be an MS61 and have monster color? So I don't know where anyone got the idea that a coin has to meet a certain grade requirement as I know of nobody in the business who would say such a thing. Collectors can define a coin how they like but there simply is no grade cut when it comes to monsters and I will show you a perfect example...

 

 

I purchased this coin several years ago at a show...it used to belong to one of the top Toned Morgan collectors on the planet...and he doesn't have coins in his collection that aren't monsters. The color and luster are off the charts on this one and I consider it a monster toned Morgan......but as you can see PCGS gave it the grade of MS63 so now I find out this coin can't be a monster cause it's a 63??? That makes no sense....monster refers to the color and not the grade and always has when talking toned coins...

 

 

 

 

For what it's worth...the coin above is under graded and should be in an MS64 holder...

 

[KeyLargoRareCoins-migratio]

The two criteria that I will start with, and which I think most will agree with, are as follows:

 

1. The coin must be at least MS-66 (although I've heard plenty of people use 67 as the minimum grade).

 

2. The coin must have blazing above average luster, even under/through the toning.

 

I see no reason why a "monster" needs to grade at least MS66. I believe that to be an arbitrary, needless and pointless cutoff. I've seen plenty of MS65 and MS64 monsters and some others graded lower than that.

 

I also don't see a practical way to define "monster". Different people with different experience, perceptions, perspectives and tastes will be viewing and assessing them. Unless you want to use something like "One look at a 'monster' will cause even a highly experienced/knowledgeable toning enthusiast to say 'wow' or something similar".

 

 

 

Some dates in the morgan series are just impossible to get in a 66 plus with amazing color. I would prefer every coin in my collection to be 66 plus But that cant happen, I am happy with any coin that has what I consider to be eye appeal regardless of the grade. I had a 64 columbia commem at one time that I thought was a monster and I think it was only a 63. I personally am a huge fan of end roll toning and if I could I would put an entire morgan set together with nothing but end roll toning, there would be some impossible ones to get though. I am just happy to see a thread where everyone appears to like toning

 

 

[dimefreak]

As I said.... I don't care what the holder says.The MS63 I posted is baggy as heck.... the one you posted is nice a clean. I just bought a 63 holder that certainly has Monster characteristics. But it will likely go MS64 if reholdered.

[SkyMan]

I will post a few coins below that I think have nice color however the grades hold them back from being a true monster, I think a monster would have to be at least a 66, now there can be coins with monster color in lower grades and those are actually very common. I am not sure how many here are familiar with the battle creek sale but there were some serious monsters in that collection.

 

 

IMO a technical grade associated with a monster toned Morgan is somewhat missing the point, in that, by definition, by including toned in the description of the coin means that is what you are talking about. Also, by definition, saying that coins in MS63 with monster toning are common is definitionally misrepresenting what monster color means. By definition monster means it has to be way above and beyond other coins.

 

I was lucky enough to see essentially all of the ~ 1,400 Battle Creek (BC) coins, and bought quite a few of them myself. There were originally 9 bags in the hoard. I may be wrong but it is my understanding, that those that were given a star were given the BC designation, ~ !,400 coins.

 

As mentioned, I've seen essentially all the BC coins. Going from worst to best, IMO ~ 600 never should have gotten the star. Of the rest, 300 were OK coins. After that, another 300 were quite pleasant, then 100 very nice and finally there were around 100 true monsters. Note, these monsters were in the MS63- 66 range (there was only one MS67 graded BC coin, and IMO it was a nice, but not spectacular toner). One only has to look at the bidding prices realized to realize that some of the true BC monsters were in MS63 grades.

 

One thing that makes it difficult to talk about toner monsters is that two coins can both have the same toning and yet one will obviously have much more POP in hand even if it is graded lower than another coin. For example, using some of the BC coins in my collection, this first coin is graded MS65, and has semi-prooflike surfaces that give an extra dimension to the toning.

 

 

This next coin is an MS64, and does not have semi-PL surfaces.

 

 

Just by the definitions I gave you... colors essentially the same, MS65 vs. MS64, semi-PL vs. regular, you'd think the first coin would be a no brainer better coin than the second. However, the thing about really nice toning is that it IS difficult to talk about, you have to see it to know it. The two coins both sold in the same auction. The second coin, e.g. the MS64, sold for ~ 2.5 more money than the MS65 coin. FWIW, the MS64 is a nice coin, but not what I would consider a monster, by the above definitions I'd call it quite pleasant.

 

I owned at one point essentially all the monster reverse toned BC's. However, I've sold some of the higher graded ones, and kept some of the lower graded ones. Part of this was to free up some funds, but part of it also is that toning isn't a function of the technical grade the coin, it is it's own characteristic. My avatar coin is an MS64. I have nicer BC coins (both technically and toning wise) than my avatar, but it's just a neat coin.

 

 

Here's a BC MS66 that I would consider quite pleasant by my above definitions.

 

 

Here's a very nice BC MS65.

 

Here's a very nice BC MS64.

 

Here's a monster toned BC MS63.

 

Again, all of these coins are ones you have to see in hand to realize just how vibrant the toning is.

[wdrob]

What about these two? Monster or no?

 

I am asking to get an idea of what should be considered 'Monster' as it relates to any of the coins I have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And a switch up.

 

 

 

I am assuming none of these would be even remotely considered 'Monster' toning but then again I didn't buy them for any supposed Monster level.

 

 

 

[dimefreak]

BTW Mr Key Largo.. . That 1883O is a bag toner and not a End of roll

[jom]

After being in the rare coin market about 21 years I can certainly say that Morgan dollars with nice toning have been readily available at pretty much EVERY show I've ever attended. Whether there was "monster" toned coins at those shows depends on your definition. But if there were monster toned coins at a show they are more then likely going to be a Morgan dollar....just my observation.

 

jom

[mumu]

This is dumb.

[mumu]

What's makes a nice car?

What makes a girl hot?

What makes a food dish delicious?

What makes a nice shirt?

 

Monster is just an adjective. Its not a grade. You cant define monster as you cant define any other coin adjective from "Nice coin" to anything in between.