• 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.

Ms 63 Morgan

Started by CrazyBirdMan,

21 posts in this topic

jgrinz

jgrinz

Posted
Posted

A Plus maybe but a PL its not - Like the reverse where all the lettering is frosted Same has to be true with the obverse all the stars

and lettering need to be frosted also. The cheek on the obverse is also not quite there is frostiness.

Nice looking coin though

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Just Bob

Just Bob

Posted
Posted

Sorry, but nowhere in all of that you just posted is there mention of a proof dollar that was minted in New Orleans in 1881. Prooflike maybe, but not an actual proof. 

And, honestly, even if there were, your coin is still a polished business strike. I can even tell you which way the polishing wheel was turning on each part of the coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgrinz

jgrinz

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Be more specific. I have no idea what you are telling me.

He just likes cutting and Pasting :/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinsandmedals

coinsandmedals

Posted
Posted

Travis, I thought we had been over this? How many times are you going to post this polished Morgan and attempt to argue it’s a branch mint proof? It simply is not. You have a damaged coin.

3 hours ago, Travis Hale said:

Always keep reading Bob. There is exactly one graded so far. Just thought you’d know that one, it’s on your site....

Just FYI, there isn’t a single 1881-O proof Morgan graded at either NGC or PCGS. 

B2E77421-9DA5-4D9F-971E-6E8192FA5C29.thumb.png.a35726fac9edcb654651ca11b01f21de.png3632A533-431C-4544-A7BF-CD8A7138207D.thumb.png.2f454e6816657295e6bef38df9d795e7.png

Furthermore, your “proof” makes no mention of an 1881-O proof Morgan.

3 hours ago, Travis Hale said:

Here’s Proof for the proof....F9CE96FA-F181-47F1-8EC8-5D0C3C1A7D5A.thumb.png.6e2c6dd83ea543d1c9e63bcd26ca12a1.png

097104CD-5A2C-4C7F-A35E-47FA2F95ADC9.png

CC2DC122-8165-4640-87E9-2B36ECB543EF.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greenstang

Greenstang

Posted
Posted

This was fully explained to Mr. Hale in his other post (Proofs????)

when he cut and pasted information that did nothing to prove his business

strike was a Proof. I guess there is nothing that is going to convince him 

that his Morgan is not a proof. There were not even any 1881O Proofs minted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conder101

Conder101

Posted
Posted
On 5/13/2019 at 6:06 AM, jgrinz said:

A Plus maybe but a PL its not - Like the reverse where all the lettering is frosted Same has to be true with the obverse all the stars

and lettering need to be frosted also. The cheek on the obverse is also not quite there is frostiness.

There does not have to be frosted features to be a PL.  PL refers to the reflectiveness of the fields and the degree of frost on the devices doesn't matter.  Frost on devices refers to cameo and contrast between the devices and the fields

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing