• 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.

does this CC morgan look .....????
0

25 posts in this topic

16 minutes ago, dollarfan said:

i was browsing ebay thinking i want a couple toned morgans.  this is in one of those NNC slabs and is described as gem uncirculated.  Please advise your thoughts thanks!

s-l1600 (8).jpg

s-l1600 (9).jpgNice coin, but idk about a gem the reverse has a lot of wear on the arrows and on olive branch above “cc”. Obverse looks great but reverse appears to be cleaned as when I zoom in I see see several parallel hairlines going the same direction. But since it’s not in hand it’s hard to tell. Again this is just my opinion and I’m sure someone with a lot more knowledge will chime in and give you better advice to go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JKK said:

The mint mark does not look right and parts of the reverse look quite circulated.

yeah thats what im seeing also,  it looks like EF45 ish but i dont know enough to be certain.  the feet of the eagle appear totally worn off, no arrow details and soft mushy hair on the obverse definately doesnt look UNC.  what do you think of the toning?  does it look natural and wouldnt some of the toning wrap to the back edge even if it was and "end of roll" coin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after doing some research it appears the seller and the NNC grading company may be one and the same.  they have alot of coins of different denominations that have almost identical toning/ color patterns.  i am very curious as to the toning and if it is all AT??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coin looks artificially toned. And considering the detail on the obverse, portions of the reverse look surprisingly weak. There are more than enough reasons to avoid this piece.

Edited by MarkFeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RWB said:

Counterfeit from head to tail.

I though that, other than the color, the obverse looked plausible but that the reverse weakness didn’t compute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev: Luster at right vs weak, smooth features at tail is a clear giveaway; add the phony mintmark, etc., etc. Obv has similar detail inconsistencies. This is the kind of garbage that is killing interest among potential collectors.

The hobby really needs aggressive anti-counterfeiting action not babbling and blabbing. ANA, as the chartered agent of collectors, SHOULD be doing this - but the ANA Board got it's clothes from the same tailor as the Emperor's new suit.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the guy claims to be one of the oldest sellers on ebay and ALOT of his coins look very similarly toned and just off?  and he apparently is the person who slabs the NNC coins based on unconfirmed info i read???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dollarfan said:

the guy claims to be one of the oldest sellers on ebay and ALOT of his coins look very similarly toned and just off?  and he apparently is the person who slabs the NNC coins based on unconfirmed info i read???

Can you post a link to his listings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Can you post a link to his listings?

sir on the 1892 reverse what do you observe on the top rim/edge?  it looks off centered but not not quite the same on the front?  i get to looking at the images and start second guessing what i may or may not be seeing/  thanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, dollarfan said:

sir on the 1892 reverse what do you observe on the top rim/edge?  it looks off centered but not not quite the same on the front?  i get to looking at the images and start second guessing what i may or may not be seeing/  thanks 

I think it’s just the angle. But it doesn’t really matter, as the coin looks AU and artificially toned. I’d avoid those listings altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of his toned Morgans look NT to me but I do question some others. I'm also not wondering if his pictures are scanned. A scanner has tendencies to take away a lot from a coin, including luster and possible representation of actual colors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood why anyone would want to take a really old coin like that in very good condition and ruin it with artificial toning. Completely ruin a very old piece of history. Just my opinion it should be illegal. Breaks my heart to see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2021 at 8:17 PM, Just Bob said:

This particular seller, centsles, has been mentioned more than once over the years - here and ATS - as a seller of problem coins. He/she is best avoided.

Some people see color on a coin and lose their ability to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2021 at 9:11 PM, Hoghead515 said:

I never understood why anyone would want to take a really old coin like that in very good condition and ruin it with artificial toning.

Money, the ability to separate a lot more money from a sucker than a knowledgeable collector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

Money, the ability to separate a lot more money from a sucker than a knowledgeable collector.

It really bothers me to see it. Once its done its ruined. No going back. I wouldn't have the heart to do that. Supposed to be preserving them. Not altering them. Some people don't care about nothing but greed. Don't care if there be any good ones left for our future generations to enjoy. Sorry to carry on like this. It just frustrates me to see people deface something like that over 100 years old just to make a dollar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0