Trophy Morgan, or, will beauty fade?

[Hard Times]

The opinion is neither negative nor positive. Anyone who reads it as "such negativity" is missing the fundamentals of discourse.

 

From the photo, abrasions on the obverse clearly remove the coin from MS-65 or MS-66. Maybe the photo is deceptive; or maybe not.

 

The coin is a common date Morgan dollar with some nice obverse color. It has no special feature intrinsic to the piece - just some ephemeral tarnish. To me, Legend did an excellent job in getting $20,000 from someone with "more money than sense."

 

However, I recognize that there are people who treasure ephemeral surface effects over real substance, and that many of these have funds to squander on the pleasure of owning such a coin. So be it. Colorfully toned coins are certainly interesting and a pleasure to view; but "value" is a market judgement, and in this instance one with which I completely disagree.

 

My personal opinion stands. Opinions of others are of equal merit.

 

You could have just said that the coin isn't one that you would buy and leave it at that. Instead, you have to announce your disdain for a fellow collector who happens to appreciate the coin more than you do.

 

Personally, I like the coin and "MS-63" is a ridiculously-low assessment of the grade. Do you have any coins for sale ?

 

An opinion of 'disdain' is not allowed on these boards? Personally, I have no problem with any opinion on these boards, disdain or otherwise. I think Roger's opinion is well thought out and courteous, and it could be that indeed someone spending $20K on a coin that is as common as nails is pretty darn dumb after all, so saying such, well that is Rogers right. I thunk you be calling him out because of other dialect that has gone on in these boards between you two.....

 

Best, HT

[david3142]

I have examined the coin in person. It is absolutely stunning, although I liked the 82-S in 68 more. I don't remember if I thought this coin was a 67 or 67+ but I valued it at $11K. I do see what looks like a print on the bottom left but I do not remember seeing that in hand so it obviously wasn't distracting to me. What is much more apparent is the textile across the cheek.

[physics-fan3.14]

The enormous palm print across much of the obverse immediately turns me off of this coin...

 

Huh?

 

I don't see a palm print anywhere. I see a bit of "textile toning" on the neck, through the hair, etc. -- but nothing that looks even remotely like a palm print or any other kind of "print".

 

It's very light and almost inconsequential... Lower left obverse field

 

I still don't see it, but it is certainly not an "...enormous palm print across much of the obverse..." as described by physics-fan3.14.

 

 

I do see a print below her jaw and in front of her chin, but I agree with brg5658; It is certainly not "enormous" and is certainly not "across much of the obverse".

 

The palm print extends from the rim at star 6 across her chin and cheek to just below her ear, and then down to the first digit in the date. As such, it covers about 20% of the area of the obverse. I'd call that huge. That area of the coin is a bit underlit, so I'm assuming it is more visible in hand. It has been there long enough to actually affect the toning pattern, which means it is well set in. The textile toning pattern adjoins the palm print pattern, and overlaps it on her neck and throat.

 

Perhaps I'm over-reacting, perhaps I just *really* hate palm/hand/fingerprints (moreso than many others). In my opinion, it is highly unattractive and extremely distracting, and I would refuse to own that coin because of it. That's my choice. Many others won't be bothered by it, won't consider it a big deal, and will pay a premium for an otherwise attractive coin. That's their choice.

[dcarr]

The opinion is neither negative nor positive. Anyone who reads it as "such negativity" is missing the fundamentals of discourse.

 

From the photo, abrasions on the obverse clearly remove the coin from MS-65 or MS-66. Maybe the photo is deceptive; or maybe not.

 

The coin is a common date Morgan dollar with some nice obverse color. It has no special feature intrinsic to the piece - just some ephemeral tarnish. To me, Legend did an excellent job in getting $20,000 from someone with "more money than sense."

 

However, I recognize that there are people who treasure ephemeral surface effects over real substance, and that many of these have funds to squander on the pleasure of owning such a coin. So be it. Colorfully toned coins are certainly interesting and a pleasure to view; but "value" is a market judgement, and in this instance one with which I completely disagree.

 

My personal opinion stands. Opinions of others are of equal merit.

 

You could have just said that the coin isn't one that you would buy and leave it at that. Instead, you have to announce your disdain for a fellow collector who happens to appreciate the coin more than you do.

 

Personally, I like the coin and "MS-63" is a ridiculously-low assessment of the grade. Do you have any coins for sale ?

 

An opinion of 'disdain' is not allowed on these boards? Personally, I have no problem with any opinion on these boards, disdain or otherwise. I think Roger's opinion is well thought out and courteous, and it could be that indeed someone spending $20K on a coin that is as common as nails is pretty darn dumb after all, so saying such, well that is Rogers right. I thunk you be calling him out because of other dialect that has gone on in these boards between you two.....

 

Best, HT

 

RWB wrote that the buyer had "more money than sense" and that they "treasure ephemeral surface effects over real substance". This is clearly and intentionally derogatory towards the buyer of that coin (and that buyer is likely a sophisticated individual that knows what they like, in spite of RWB).

These types of comments are just more examples of the "toxicity" of this forum as mentioned by others recently.

 

PS:

Surfaces are substance. Otherwise, cleaned coins would be valued the same as un-cleaned coins with the same details remaining.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The opinion is neither negative nor positive. Anyone who reads it as "such negativity" is missing the fundamentals of discourse.

 

From the photo, abrasions on the obverse clearly remove the coin from MS-65 or MS-66. Maybe the photo is deceptive; or maybe not.

 

The coin is a common date Morgan dollar with some nice obverse color. It has no special feature intrinsic to the piece - just some ephemeral tarnish. To me, Legend did an excellent job in getting $20,000 from someone with "more money than sense."

 

However, I recognize that there are people who treasure ephemeral surface effects over real substance, and that many of these have funds to squander on the pleasure of owning such a coin. So be it. Colorfully toned coins are certainly interesting and a pleasure to view; but "value" is a market judgement, and in this instance one with which I completely disagree.

 

My personal opinion stands. Opinions of others are of equal merit.

 

You could have just said that the coin isn't one that you would buy and leave it at that. Instead, you have to announce your disdain for a fellow collector who happens to appreciate the coin more than you do.

 

Personally, I like the coin and "MS-63" is a ridiculously-low assessment of the grade. Do you have any coins for sale ?

 

An opinion of 'disdain' is not allowed on these boards? Personally, I have no problem with any opinion on these boards, disdain or otherwise. I think Roger's opinion is well thought out and courteous, and it could be that indeed someone spending $20K on a coin that is as common as nails is pretty darn dumb after all, so saying such, well that is Rogers right. I thunk you be calling him out because of other dialect that has gone on in these boards between you two.....

 

Best, HT

 

RWB wrote that the buyer had "more money than sense" and that they "treasure ephemeral surface effects over real substance". This is clearly and intentionally derogatory towards the buyer of that coin (and that buyer is likely a sophisticated individual that knows what they like, in spite of RWB).

These types of comments are just more examples of the "toxicity" of this forum as mentioned by others recently.

 

PS:

Surfaces are substance. Otherwise, cleaned coins would be valued the same as un-cleaned coins with the same details remaining.

 

That sort of seems the same as stating something somebody is offering for sale on a website is LEGAL, knowing there has not been any LEGAL adjudication of whether or not what is being offered is LEGAL. The buyer probably knows what they like, and what is being offered for sale is clearly and intentionally an offer by a sophisticated individual that is sort of intentionally derogatory toward opinions of people that have a different opinion.

 

It sort of causes toxicity on the boards when somebody that has different opinions states their opinions and then is informed the opinion is toxic. But, it is LEGAL to state an opinion.

 

That is just my opinion of course, concerning posts that don't take a "physician heal thyself" moment about opinions of the perfectly LEGAL posts of other members, before declaring LEGAL posts and opinions of others as toxic.

[PocketArt]

Hey, how ‘bout that game 7 last night!

 

Anyways, I appreciate all the feedback, and preservation concerns I had in regards to this Morgan. The reason I initially questioned the stability of the coin in question is because I have coins that have turned in holders- not since I’ve owned them that I can tell; but judging by the label on the slab when I bought them. For example; I’ve bought early Lincoln RB cents that are clearly brown, and Red cents that honestly look RB. Perhaps this is comparing apples to oranges in regards to copper? However; I also have a 52-s Quarter that was graded MS67 but the reverse looks terminal and covered in black toning. So, these were probably related to just poor storage with the coins?

 

This may be a ridiculous question: would vacuum sealing a slab have any benefit with preservation of a coin?

 

[MJ]

Close to 30 years in that holder, it's pretty stable. Keep it in a friendly environment and it should look pretty much the same in another 30. Whether the $20K+ worth of toning is still worth that is anybody's guess.

 

 

 

 

Pretty much my sentiments exactly. In addition, as toned dollars go, that one is at the top of the tree IMO and could easily be the centerpiece of even an advanced toned dollar collection.

 

I'm with you two. I've seen the coin in hand and thought it gorgeous. Toned Morgan's ain't my jam but if they were this would I would consider.

 

As far as being buried in toned Morgan's like this or the bottom falling out of the market I wouldn't count on it. The players are younger and more plentiful then you think. Add deep,pockets and a competive streak and you have a solid niche market.

 

 

mark

[WoodenJefferson]

I'd much rather buy (down payment) on a pretty truck.

[coinman1794]

Hey, how ‘bout that game 7 last night!

 

Anyways, I appreciate all the feedback, and preservation concerns I had in regards to this Morgan. The reason I initially questioned the stability of the coin in question is because I have coins that have turned in holders- not since I’ve owned them that I can tell; but judging by the label on the slab when I bought them. For example; I’ve bought early Lincoln RB cents that are clearly brown, and Red cents that honestly look RB. Perhaps this is comparing apples to oranges in regards to copper? However; I also have a 52-s Quarter that was graded MS67 but the reverse looks terminal and covered in black toning. So, these were probably related to just poor storage with the coins?

 

This may be a ridiculous question: would vacuum sealing a slab have any benefit with preservation of a coin?

 

Vacuum sealing a container in which a slab resides will temporarily prevent gases from reaching the coin, but no vacuum seal is permanent. Also, there is air sealed inside the slab that could contain harmful gasses.

 

The best approach that I have found to prevent toning is to use a quasi-air tight container (or vacuum sealed bag) with silica canister inside and Intercept, in one of its many forms, around each coin holder or slab.

[coinman1794]

The enormous palm print across much of the obverse immediately turns me off of this coin...

 

Huh?

 

I don't see a palm print anywhere. I see a bit of "textile toning" on the neck, through the hair, etc. -- but nothing that looks even remotely like a palm print or any other kind of "print".

 

It's very light and almost inconsequential... Lower left obverse field

 

I still don't see it, but it is certainly not an "...enormous palm print across much of the obverse..." as described by physics-fan3.14.

 

 

I do see a print below her jaw and in front of her chin, but I agree with brg5658; It is certainly not "enormous" and is certainly not "across much of the obverse".

 

The palm print extends from the rim at star 6 across her chin and cheek to just below her ear, and then down to the first digit in the date. As such, it covers about 20% of the area of the obverse. I'd call that huge. That area of the coin is a bit underlit, so I'm assuming it is more visible in hand. It has been there long enough to actually affect the toning pattern, which means it is well set in. The textile toning pattern adjoins the palm print pattern, and overlaps it on her neck and throat.

 

Perhaps I'm over-reacting, perhaps I just *really* hate palm/hand/fingerprints (moreso than many others). In my opinion, it is highly unattractive and extremely distracting, and I would refuse to own that coin because of it. That's my choice. Many others won't be bothered by it, won't consider it a big deal, and will pay a premium for an otherwise attractive coin. That's their choice.

 

I have not seen this coin in person, but my impression from the provided images is that there are hazy prints on the lower left obverse and canvas textile bag toning on the cheek. It is possible there could be some overlap of the two. I am mildly bothered by the prints, either way.

[coinman_23885]

I'd much rather buy (down payment) on a pretty truck.

 

I would rather take that money and use it as a partial down payment on an investment property.

[numisport]

Coin surely needs reholdered but they may not do it. Maybe that's why print on obverse is hard to make out. Always be suspect of older holders. Such a beautiful coin would show much better in new plastic. Nothing lost if they don't reholder - except about 18000 dollars.

[coinman_23885]

Coin surely needs reholdered but they may not do it. Maybe that's why print on obverse is hard to make out. Always be suspect of older holders.

 

Why? The old holder shows stability.

[PocketArt]

Hey, how ‘bout that game 7 last night!

 

Anyways, I appreciate all the feedback, and preservation concerns I had in regards to this Morgan. The reason I initially questioned the stability of the coin in question is because I have coins that have turned in holders- not since I’ve owned them that I can tell; but judging by the label on the slab when I bought them. For example; I’ve bought early Lincoln RB cents that are clearly brown, and Red cents that honestly look RB. Perhaps this is comparing apples to oranges in regards to copper? However; I also have a 52-s Quarter that was graded MS67 but the reverse looks terminal and covered in black toning. So, these were probably related to just poor storage with the coins?

 

This may be a ridiculous question: would vacuum sealing a slab have any benefit with preservation of a coin?

 

Vacuum sealing a container in which a slab resides will temporarily prevent gases from reaching the coin, but no vacuum seal is permanent. Also, there is air sealed inside the slab that could contain harmful gasses.

 

The best approach that I have found to prevent toning is to use a quasi-air tight container (or vacuum sealed bag) with silica canister inside and Intercept, in one of its many forms, around each coin holder or slab.

 

Thanks coinman1794. I was curious if vacuum sealing would be a credible way to protect coins from turning further- glad to hear not too nutty. I will look into silica canister and intercept for preservation. After all, we are all custodians and curators till the torch is passed to another enthusiast.

 

Rich

[mumu]

the name "nature's ultimate baby" made my scrotum cringe

[Zoins]

Coin surely needs reholdered but they may not do it. Maybe that's why print on obverse is hard to make out. Always be suspect of older holders.

 

Why? The old holder shows stability.

 

Agree with the benefits of older holders. This one looks particularly nice as it is an old fatty holder.

 

Why be suspect of older holders?

[brg5658]

Coin surely needs reholdered but they may not do it. Maybe that's why print on obverse is hard to make out. Always be suspect of older holders.

 

Why? The old holder shows stability.

 

Agree with the benefits of holder holders. This one looks particularly nice as it is an old fatty holder.

 

Why be suspect of older holders?

 

I'm sure a "cross" to PCGS was already tried...I'm always suspect of anything in Legend Auctions that's in NGC holders. They are self-proclaimed PCGS/CAC dealers.

[Zoins]

Coin surely needs reholdered but they may not do it. Maybe that's why print on obverse is hard to make out. Always be suspect of older holders.

 

Why? The old holder shows stability.

 

Agree with the benefits of older holders. This one looks particularly nice as it is an old fatty holder.

 

Why be suspect of older holders?

 

I'm sure a "cross" to PCGS was already tried...I'm always suspect of anything in Legend Auctions that's in NGC holders. They are self-proclaimed PCGS/CAC dealers.

 

I'm generally less / not suspect of monster toners in NGC holders. Prices of monster toners don't reflect any price guide, PCGS, NGC or otherwise.

 

Also, this is in Legend's Auction, not offered via their website which are different things.

 

I think the old fatty holder for this rocks.

[coinman_23885]

I'm sure a "cross" to PCGS was already tried...I'm always suspect of anything in Legend Auctions that's in NGC holders. They are self-proclaimed PCGS/CAC dealers.

 

I don't usually read too much into plastic and stickers, but I agree with you here. If it is in a Legend sale and is in a NGC holder and/or lacks a CAC sticker, I believe there is a reason for it - it isn't for lack of trying by Legend.

[david3142]

I'm pretty sure you are both incorrect as I recall Laura telling me the only Flannagan coin (at least of the top few) they put in a new holder was the 82-S in 68.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I'm pretty sure you are both incorrect as I recall Laura telling me the only Flannagan coin (at least of the top few) they put in a new holder was the 82-S in 68.

 

I am not sure that is proof that their opinions are incorrect.

[david3142]

And "pretty sure" does not equal "proof". My assessment is based on an actual interaction with Laura, though. Otherwise, I generally agree that they would prefer to sell all coins as PCGS and CAC.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

And "pretty sure" does not equal "proof". My assessment is based on an actual interaction with Laura, though. Otherwise, I generally agree that they would prefer to sell all coins as PCGS and CAC.

 

I understand. I am pretty sure their opinions might be correct, based on my interactions with Ms. Sperber. I nice person, who certainly fights the coin doctors, a bit gruff, but aren't we all. At the end of the day, legend and CAC are a business, and the business model will outweigh other considerations in minor matters such as that being discussed.

[coinman_23885]

I'm pretty sure you are both incorrect as I recall Laura telling me the only Flannagan coin (at least of the top few) they put in a new holder was the 82-S in 68.

 

I'm not doubting your account, but I would question her response. This is the same lady that opines openly that you are leaving money on the table if it isn't in a PCGS holder with a CAC sticker if it is capable of being certified as such. As an auction house, the goal is to maximize return for your consignor and your fees as well. Assuming she actually believes those other statements to be true (and sadly I believe those statements to be true in many/most cases for the type of stuff that Legend sells), it would be hypocritical at best not to attempt a cross. I am also betting that she isn't counting the Legend Numismatic retreads that occasionally appear in the auctions some of which were crossed over by Legend Numismatics prior to being handed over to its auction division.

[Keigwin]

As a rule I keep coins in old holders unless there is a very good reason not to.

 

Who doesn't love NGC no-line fatties? It's a classic holder for this spectacular coin.

 

One thing to remember about these old slabs is that many coins toned (or continued to tone) inside the holders because of the absence of the separating slab line. Gassing from the paper cert affects the coin.

 

As this Morgan has probably reached its colorful pinnacle I would probably get it reholdered so it remains unchanged for many years to come.

Lance.

[coinman_23885]

As a rule I keep coins in old holders unless there is a very good reason not to.

 

Who doesn't love NGC no-line fatties? It's a classic holder for this spectacular coin.

 

One thing to remember about these old slabs is that many coins toned (or continued to tone) inside the holders because of the absence of the separating slab line. Gassing from the paper cert affects the coin.

 

As this Morgan has probably reached its colorful pinnacle I would probably get it reholdered so it remains unchanged for many years to come.

Lance.

 

That makes sense, but rather than a reholder, a crossover to PCGS would make more sense. On top of already being undergraded, PCGS is also likely to color bump it. I wouldn't be surprised to see this come back in a MS67+ or MS68 holder where it could sell for even more next time.

[Keigwin]

I agree. I was using the term "reholder" in a general sense but I shouldn't have because it has a specific meaning.

 

Crossing or regrading is a better option, and a higher grade at either service is likely. Obviously JA felt it deserved better.

Lance.

[numisport]

I'm pretty sure you are both incorrect as I recall Laura telling me the only Flannagan coin (at least of the top few) they put in a new holder was the 82-S in 68.

 

I'm not doubting your account, but I would question her response. This is the same lady that opines openly that you are leaving money on the table if it isn't in a PCGS holder with a CAC sticker if it is capable of being certified as such. As an auction house, the goal is to maximize return for your consignor and your fees as well. Assuming she actually believes those other statements to be true (and sadly I believe those statements to be true in many/most cases for the type of stuff that Legend sells), it would be hypocritical at best not to attempt a cross. I am also betting that she isn't counting the Legend Numismatic retreads that occasionally appear in the auctions some of which were crossed over by Legend Numismatics prior to being handed over to its auction division.

She also stated that some Newman coins she grabbed up were 'not marketable' in NGC holders. I think seeing them downgrade in PCGS holders gave her and some board members a degree of satisfaction when in fact PCGS is certainly great at market grading coins that end up in their own dealer hands.

[numisport]

As a rule I keep coins in old holders unless there is a very good reason not to.

 

Who doesn't love NGC no-line fatties? It's a classic holder for this spectacular coin.

 

One thing to remember about these old slabs is that many coins toned (or continued to tone) inside the holders because of the absence of the separating slab line. Gassing from the paper cert affects the coin.

 

As this Morgan has probably reached its colorful pinnacle I would probably get it reholdered so it remains unchanged for many years to come.

Lance.

Am I the only one that loves new holders ? Nearly all of my coins are in new fresh holders because they show better in scratch free plastic. What's the purpose of owning coins with great eye appeal if you are viewing them through scratched and polished holders. Is it just me ?

[coinman_23885]

As a rule I keep coins in old holders unless there is a very good reason not to.

 

Who doesn't love NGC no-line fatties? It's a classic holder for this spectacular coin.

 

One thing to remember about these old slabs is that many coins toned (or continued to tone) inside the holders because of the absence of the separating slab line. Gassing from the paper cert affects the coin.

 

As this Morgan has probably reached its colorful pinnacle I would probably get it reholdered so it remains unchanged for many years to come.

Lance.

Am I the only one that loves new holders ? Nearly all of my coins are in new fresh holders because they show better in scratch free plastic. What's the purpose of owning coins with great eye appeal if you are viewing them through scratched and polished holders. Is it just me ?

 

As much as I like NGC, I like the thinner, newer PCGS holders which I think are optically superior.