• 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.

1879-S, 1880-S, 1881-S Morgan Dollars (Toned)

43 posts in this topic

wdrob - you show two completely different coins with two completely different color and toning patterns. One of them is extremely attractive and perfectly original, and the market will pay a very strong premium for it.

 

I wish to be clear that I was not intending to compare the beauty of these (or that particular example) Morgan Dollars with that of the Columbian example that I used. I only stated that "some of the colors matched" a previously opined example. I never claimed the patterns were a match or even similar.

 

 

The two coins look absolutely nothing alike, and I don't see where there is any inconsistency or hypocrisy in the statements made in this thread.

 

I was pointing out that in the other thread discussing the Columbian Half Dollar, it was stated by Mark Feld that "And even if there were proof that the coin toned on its own in that purse, to me, that wouldn't be justification to label it NT. Because assessments should be made based on the appearance of the coin, not the story that accompanies them."

 

I just noticed that in this thread Mark had qualified his opinion on the originality of the toning of the Morgan Dollars as that of "bag-toned". In the previous thread, addressing the Columbian, he claimed that even if there was proof that the coin toned naturally in that coin purse it should not be labeled NT. That just confuses me. It is OK to qualify one grade based on a hypothesis yet discard the other which, under his hypothetical criteria, was proven to have toned naturally.

 

 

I believe your point is that "only the coin should matter" and it does. One is consistent with bag toning, a known phenomenon that is very popular. The second does not have toning consistent with widely accepted appearances, and so will not be accepted by the marketplace.

 

I understand your point and the explanation by Kenny, and apologize to the OP for derailing the thread by my observations, regardless of whether they were with or without merit. I have no stake in that Colombian, btw, since someone else owns it now.

 

 

Bottom line is that these presented Morgan Dollars are very attractive!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wdrob - you show two completely different coins with two completely different color and toning patterns. One of them is extremely attractive and perfectly original, and the market will pay a very strong premium for it.

 

I wish to be clear that I was not intending to compare the beauty of these (or that particular example) Morgan Dollars with that of the Columbian example that I used. I only stated that "some of the colors matched" a previously opined example. I never claimed the patterns were a match or even similar.

 

 

The two coins look absolutely nothing alike, and I don't see where there is any inconsistency or hypocrisy in the statements made in this thread.

 

I was pointing out that in the other thread discussing the Columbian Half Dollar, it was stated by Mark Feld that "And even if there were proof that the coin toned on its own in that purse, to me, that wouldn't be justification to label it NT. Because assessments should be made based on the appearance of the coin, not the story that accompanies them."

 

I just noticed that in this thread Mark had qualified his opinion on the originality of the toning of the Morgan Dollars as that of "bag-toned". In the previous thread, addressing the Columbian, he claimed that even if there was proof that the coin toned naturally in that coin purse it should not be labeled NT. That just confuses me. It is OK to qualify one grade based on a hypothesis yet discard the other which, under his hypothetical criteria, was proven to have toned naturally.

 

 

I believe your point is that "only the coin should matter" and it does. One is consistent with bag toning, a known phenomenon that is very popular. The second does not have toning consistent with widely accepted appearances, and so will not be accepted by the marketplace.

 

I understand your point and the explanation by Sam, and apologize to the OP for derailing the thread by my observations, regardless of whether they were with or without merit. I have no stake in that Colombian, btw, since someone else owns it now.

 

 

Bottom line is that these presented Morgan Dollars are very attractive!

 

 

You are misunderstanding him. He is all about looking at the coin in hand. The coins themselves that are the subject of this thread show independent evidence of natural toning, and he was merely commenting that this was very typical of bag toning. I don't think he would blindly assume that every wildly toned Morgan Dollar was a bag toner or NT for that matter. If someone sent in a Morgan Dollar with suspicious toning and attempted to pass it off as a bag toner, he would reject that coin just as quickly as he would a Columbian Half with claims of leather pouch toning (was that your hypothesis?). It is about the coin itself and not third party accounts in both instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wdrob - you show two completely different coins with two completely different color and toning patterns. One of them is extremely attractive and perfectly original, and the market will pay a very strong premium for it.

 

I wish to be clear that I was not intending to compare the beauty of these (or that particular example) Morgan Dollars with that of the Columbian example that I used. I only stated that "some of the colors matched" a previously opined example. I never claimed the patterns were a match or even similar.

 

 

The two coins look absolutely nothing alike, and I don't see where there is any inconsistency or hypocrisy in the statements made in this thread.

 

I was pointing out that in the other thread discussing the Columbian Half Dollar, it was stated by Mark Feld that "And even if there were proof that the coin toned on its own in that purse, to me, that wouldn't be justification to label it NT. Because assessments should be made based on the appearance of the coin, not the story that accompanies them."

 

I just noticed that in this thread Mark had qualified his opinion on the originality of the toning of the Morgan Dollars as that of "bag-toned". In the previous thread, addressing the Columbian, he claimed that even if there was proof that the coin toned naturally in that coin purse it should not be labeled NT. That just confuses me. It is OK to qualify one grade based on a hypothesis yet discard the other which, under his hypothetical criteria, was proven to have toned naturally.

 

 

I believe your point is that "only the coin should matter" and it does. One is consistent with bag toning, a known phenomenon that is very popular. The second does not have toning consistent with widely accepted appearances, and so will not be accepted by the marketplace.

 

I understand your point and the explanation by Sam, and apologize to the OP for derailing the thread by my observations, regardless of whether they were with or without merit. I have no stake in that Colombian, btw, since someone else owns it now.

 

 

Bottom line is that these presented Morgan Dollars are very attractive!

 

 

You are misunderstanding him. He is all about looking at the coin in hand. The coins themselves that are the subject of this thread show independent evidence of natural toning, and he was merely commenting that this was very typical of bag toning. I don't think he would blindly assume that every wildly toned Morgan Dollar was a bag toner or NT for that matter. If someone sent in a Morgan Dollar with suspicious toning and attempted to pass it off as a bag toner, he would reject that coin just as quickly as he would a Columbian Half with claims of leather pouch toning (was that your hypothesis?). It is about the coin itself and not third party accounts in both instances.

 

Thank you. That is a good summation of my views on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since everybody in this I'm sure very intellectually-challenging thread is defining "natural" any way they feel like it, by my humble definition, FWIW, my that toning on those Morgans is "natural." It's spectacular, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since everybody in this I'm sure very intellectually-challenging thread is defining "natural" any way they feel like it, by my humble definition, FWIW, my :censored: that toning on those Morgans is "natural." It's spectacular, though.

 

A number of coins from hoards of original bags would suggest otherwise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not knowing the history of these Morgans, it is possible Hendrix or Garcia may have once owned them, and this, in itself, could explain the psychedelic toning.

 

In any case, they should all have a caption beneath them that reads - THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON LSD!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only one duplicate I'm planning to sell sometime later this month. I'm attempting a reverse toned date set of Morgan dollars. I don't know that I'll finish with that, nothing really outstanding for many of the dates in the 1890's.

 

Beautiful toners in the neon spectrum.... Good luck with your reverse toned date set, I know what its like to put a toned date set together. Years of searching. The 1890s will be tough for sure, for my set I had a duplicate for the 1893 slot, and since I was focusing on an obverse set and this was was mostly reversed toned I sold it last year. PCGS AU55. I wish I still had it just from the standpoint that it was tough to find.

 

15705111274_381c3794e6_b.jpg1893-O AU55 by Balloon tire bikes, on Flickr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the positive feedback, I'll try to get the rest of the collection online next week.

 

@Coinman - No, but I do plan to add some monster obverse toners to the set later. I might try a short run between 1880 - 1888.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't go in for that pastel look, Eric, I have to be honest with you. But that's not the point. The point is, those coins are perfect. There's nothing wrong with their condition. To keep them from a grade because some delusional nutcake says they fall into an arbitrary category that neither he nor anyone for that matter can define in any practical, consistent way, is what's just plumb wrong. That's the point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites