1893 CC Morgan - *UPDATED W/GRADE*

[Colorado68]

I just picked this up thinking I was bidding on VF-XF condition.

It appears to me it's better than that, but would love your opinions before I send this off for grading.

Still has some mirror in the fields. Thank you!

 

 

[jpcienkus]

This one just doesn't look right to me. The spacing between the "s" & "t" in trust on the reverse look too far apart.

 

Were did you get the coin?

[MarkFeld]

The coin looks XF to me.

[Colorado68]

This one just doesn't look right to me. The spacing between the "s" & "t" in trust on the reverse look too far apart.

 

Were did you get the coin?

 

I compaired that spacing to a few other coins i have and it seems the same as half of them. im not the best at taking pictures and just learning so maybe not showing well.

What strikes me as odd is the ear not having the detail.

Could this be a weakly struck coin or just that much wear?

I picked it up on ebay and the seller has 100% rating.

Please tell me it's not a fake

[bsshog40]

The color and the marks around all the details look odd to me. Not counterfeit, but looks like it may have been cleaned. Could be the pics.

[Colorado68]

Here's a couple more shots. But like I said, I'm not that good at taking pictures and need to practice.

I think it shows the reflection a little better and gives another angle to examine.

Thanks for the replies!

 

 

 

The coin was in a whitman folding album if that explains the odd wear

[BillJones]

Sorry, but having that much reflectivity on a well circulated coin is not good. The coin had to have been cleaned, perhaps polished.

[jpcienkus]

Hey Colorado,

 

I'm sorry to have alarmed you. Something just didn't look right to me. I spent a lot of time looking at other coins and comparing them to the one you posted, both obverse and reverse. Maybe it's the lighting or maybe it's the angle, but another thing that didn't look right to me was the eagle's beak. Seemed to have too much detail for the amount of wear on the coin. the surfaces didn't look right to me either.

 

I am not an expert, nor am I saying your coin is a counterfeit. I was hoping some other more experienced collectors would chime in. And some highly respected members did and they didn't say anything about the coin being fake. So I defer to their opinions.

 

 

[Colorado68]

Hey Colorado,

 

I'm sorry to have alarmed you.

 

 

No worries

If it is a counterfeit, I'd like to know.

 

I thought this one might be tough to grade and agree there are some odd wear patterns.

 

It almost looks like it was a DMPL and someone carried it around in their pocket as a good luck charm.

The detail in the ear isn't there, almost like it wasn't struck well. Also, under a 40x loop I don't see any cleaning marks whatsoever, the fields are clean.

At the right angle under a loop you can clearly see the mirrored fields meet up perfectly with the portrait, legend, stars, date, etc.

[MarkFeld]

Hey Colorado,

 

I'm sorry to have alarmed you.

 

 

No worries

If it is a counterfeit, I'd like to know.

 

I thought this one might be tough to grade and agree there are some odd wear patterns.

 

It almost looks like it was a DMPL and someone carried it around in their pocket as a good luck charm.

The detail in the ear isn't there, almost like it wasn't struck well. Also, under a 40x loop I don't see any cleaning marks whatsoever, the fields are clean.

At the right angle under a loop you can clearly see the mirrored fields meet up perfectly with the portrait, legend, stars, date, etc.

 

I agree with Bill Jones - the fields should not be mirrored. The coin must have been cleaned or polished.

[BillJones]

It almost looks like it was a DMPL and someone carried it around in their pocket as a good luck charm. 

 

Pocket pieces do not end up with a DPL or polished appearance. They end up a dullish silver color if they are not cleaned. If they are pocket pieces for enough time, they become "slicks" with very little detail remaining and not much "shine."

[Walkerfan]

Cleaned VF 35 details.

[Colorado68]

Just got it back today and happy with the grade, AU55

 

 

I'm assuming it's a soft strike and why it looks worn. This is one of those coins you need to see in hand as electronic photos don't represent well.

 

[mtnstyne]

Wow, nice pick-up. Without knowing what you paid for it that was quite a risk based on the photos. It is certainly not an attractive example but NGC decided it was problem free and AU.

[bsshog40]

The picture in the slab is a lot different than the first pics. I know I would have had a different opinion had I seen the last pic.

[Colorado68]

Wow, nice pick-up. Without knowing what you paid for it that was quite a risk based on the photos. It is certainly not an attractive example but NGC decided it was problem free and AU.

 

I paid less than $1,000 for it and yes, was a big risk. Here's the original pictures posted in the auction:

 

 

 

Like I said, I'm new at coin photography and lighting can really add or detract. My first couple photos certainly detracted.

These are all the same exact coin just different lighting. Here it is in the NGC holder close up.

 

 

 

[e1cnr]

very nice,

 

definitely a headscratcher as too mismatch between niceness of denticles/edge and weakness//?wear? of center of coin

[nater222-migration]

Weigh it and check it with a magnet. Should weigh close to 26.73 grams, and not stick to a magnet. That is always a good start, as fakes rarely weigh right, and are usually magnetic as well. If it is real I would say it was polished, then carried around in a pocket for a while.

Nate

[furham-migration]

I'm with a lot of the others. If I would have seen this coin before I saw the grade I would have said XF cleaned.