Cleaned/Dipped? 1 1

[EagleRJO]

Just curious if people think the first Morgan was cleaned.  Something is just rubbing me the wrong way, like dark spots within letters and the different Obv and Rev appearances.  Also looks like a VF, not an XF.

Also, second one looks like a BU but just too bright like a blast white, maybe dipped (my dreaded enemy with older raw Morgans lol).

Edited August 7, 2022 by EagleRJO
Wrong coin posted

[jimbo27]

To me the 79cc looks polished, the 83cc looks BU IMO.

[EagleRJO]

This is what I would expect an 1883-CC BU to look like

Edited August 7, 2022 by EagleRJO

[VKurtB]

On 8/6/2022 at 7:05 PM, EagleRJO said:

Just curious if people think the first Morgan was cleaned.  Something is just rubbing me the wrong way, like dark spots within letters and the different Obv and Rev appearances.  Also looks like a VF, not an XF.

Also, second one looks like a BU but just too bright like a blast white, maybe dipped (my dreaded enemy with older raw Morgans lol).

[Edit: Wrong Coin - Corrected]

I see a big overexposure problem here. I have a hard time with that second set. 

[Sandon]

       The 1879-CC definitely looks like it has been subjected to a scrubbing with silver polish.  The 1883-CC looks a bit washed out (dipped), but it could just be the way it was photographed.  Have you examined the actual coins or just the photos?  The same coin can look completely different in different photos!

   Many uncirculated silver coins that have likely been dipped are graded by the grading services with a reduction in MS grade.  It isn't considered "cleaning" unless the luster was significantly impaired by too many or too long immersions.  They also grade circulated silver coins that appear to have been dipped, though I hate their unnaturally bright appearance.

   In previous times (up to the 1970s or even later) many collectors preferred the appearance of dipped coins to those that had heavy toning, then derided as "ugly tarnish".  Tastes change.

   

[J P M]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:34 PM, Sandon said:

       The 1879-CC definitely looks like it has been subjected to a scrubbing with silver polish.  The 1883-CC looks a bit washed out (dipped), but it could just be the way it was photographed.  Have you examined the actual coins or just the photos?  The same coin can look completely different in different photos!

   Many uncirculated silver coins that have likely been dipped are graded by the grading services with a reduction in MS grade.  It isn't considered "cleaning" unless the luster was significantly impaired by too many or too long immersions.  They also grade circulated silver coins that appear to have been dipped, though I hate their unnaturally bright appearance.

   In previous times (up to the 1970s or even later) many collectors preferred the appearance of dipped coins to those that had heavy toning, then derided as "ugly tarnish".  Tastes change.

   

Ah yes I remember that word . Change the name from tarnished to toned and add $100 thank you very much.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:34 PM, Sandon said:

In previous times (up to the 1970s or even later) many collectors preferred the appearance of dipped coins to those that had heavy toning, then derided as "ugly tarnish".  Tastes change.

I understand that there are many raw Morgans around that dealers previously lightly dipped to slightly improve the appearance, which they did not consider detrimental or the same as cleaning or whizzing a coin. And the TPGs apparently don't specifically look for dipped coins or automatically give it a Details designation if there is any truth to that.

Even so, I just don't like the way it sometimes gives a coin that whitewashed appearance or gives a coin that bright or "blast" white appearance. I'll take a coin that looks more like the BU I posted above any day.

Edited August 7, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Sandon]

   You might want to buy your 1880-85-CC Morgan dollars in GSA holders, as they were taken from mint bags and placed in the holders without anyone having an opportunity to dip or clean them.  Many of them have a "blast white" appearance because they were stored in an airtight vault surrounded by other coins, but they aren't "washed out".

[EagleRJO]

There are empty GSA boxes/holders and COAs being sold on eBay all the time, and I'm sure unscrupulous people just plug a BU in there and put it up for sale as a GSA Morgan.  I don't think I would buy any GSA coin unless it was already certified by a TPG, and those get very pricy ... way overpriced imo.

[Coinbuf]

On 8/7/2022 at 6:30 AM, EagleRJO said:

I understand that there are many raw Morgans around that dealers previously lightly dipped to slightly improve the appearance, which they did not consider detrimental or the same as cleaning or whizzing a coin. And the TPGs apparently don't specifically look for dipped coins or automatically give it a Details designation if there is any truth to that.

Even so, I just don't like the way it sometimes gives a coin that whitewashed appearance or gives a coin that bright or "blast" white appearance. I'll take a coin that looks more like the BU I posted above any day.

What makes you think that the BU coin you posted could not look blast white under different lighting?   The three coins you have posted in this thread are all photos taken under different lighting/angle conditions, be careful of condemning or praising the condition of an uncirculated coin from a photo you did not take.   The type of lighting and the angle of the light(s) can have a very big impact on how a photo looks.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/7/2022 at 12:23 PM, Coinbuf said:

What makes you think that the BU coin you posted could not look blast white under different lighting?   The three coins you have posted in this thread are all photos taken under different lighting/angle conditions, be careful of condemning or praising the condition of an uncirculated coin from a photo you did not take.   The type of lighting and the angle of the light(s) can have a very big impact on how a photo looks.

The BU photo I subsequently posted is taken from a dealer I have bought a lot of raw coins from, and they have been virtually dead on with what actually ends up in my hand. [Edit: However, with a lighter more silver like look as Coinbuf correctly noted, as opposed to the darker appearance of the pic which I compressed/reposted quickly without really looking at it, but not the whitewashed or blast white appearance I see sometimes like with the orig BU posted]. Granted, just looking at photos can't always represent what a coin will look like, particularly with less experienced people taking the photo and different lighting, but from holding coins described and pictured as "blast" white it seems to always have a somewhat of a whitewashed/dipped appearance, and why I decided to post the orig BU one I saw for some feedback.

Edited August 7, 2022 by EagleRJO
Clarified appearance of dealer BU coin

[VKurtB]

On 8/7/2022 at 11:47 AM, EagleRJO said:

The BU photo I subsequently posted is taken from a dealer I have bought a lot of raw coins from, and they have been virtually dead on with what actually ends up in my hand.  Granted, just looking at photos can't always represent what a coin will look like, particularly with less experienced people taking the photo and different lighting, but from holding coins described and pictured as "blast" white it seems to always have a somewhat of a whitewashed/dipped appearance, and why I decided to post the orig BU one I saw for some feedback.

I refuse to believe that the first pic of the 1883-CC resembles the coin in hand in ANY way. Few will understand what I’m going to say next but @RWB will for sure. The density curves of that picture are waaaaaay off. It is so artificially brightened that it makes my teeth vibrate. 

[Coinbuf]

On 8/7/2022 at 9:47 AM, EagleRJO said:

The BU photo I subsequently posted is taken from a dealer I have bought a lot of raw coins from, and they have been virtually dead on with what actually ends up in my hand.  Granted, just looking at photos can't always represent what a coin will look like, particularly with less experienced people taking the photo and different lighting, but from holding coins described and pictured as "blast" white it seems to always have a somewhat of a whitewashed/dipped appearance, and why I decided to post the orig BU one I saw for some feedback.

I'm just pointing out that the BU photo you posted could look very different under different conditions, the heavy shadows and lack of luster is not what I would consider original nor would it entice me to buy that coin from that photo.    My sense is that the coin does not look that dark and dull in hand under proper lighting, glad that its working for you.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/7/2022 at 12:59 PM, VKurtB said:

I refuse to believe that the first pic of the 1883-CC resembles the coin in hand in ANY way. Few will understand what I’m going to say next but @RWB will for sure. The density curves of that picture are waaaaaay off. It is so artificially brightened that it makes my teeth vibrate. 

I have not held that coin in the first pic of an 1883-CC in hand, so I don't know and why I asked about an appearance that just seemed off.  Maybe someone did try to brighten a photo to make it appear better than it may actually be.  I will ask for some more photos and see what they come back with.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:30 PM, VKurtB said:

I see a big overexposure problem here. I have a hard time with that second set. 

@VKurtB Did you mean the overexposure referenced to the 1879-CC or the 1883-CC?  Is the overexposure why you have a "hard time" with that one?

Edited August 7, 2022 by EagleRJO

[VKurtB]

On 8/7/2022 at 12:21 PM, EagleRJO said:

@VKurtB Did you mean the overexposure referenced to the 1879-CC or the 1883-CC?  Is the overexposure why you have a "hard time" with that one?

The 1883, and yes, that’s why I have a hard time with it. Some coin people refer to pictures like these as “cooked”, but that’s not a photographic term. I spent over 30 years in film photography. Overexposure is what I call it. 

[EagleRJO]

I asked for some more pics of that second coin, which may just be a pic issue.  In the meantime, how about the attached 1884-CC Morgan?  It's also supposed to be BU, but there are quite a lot of marks and chatter on the obverse.  I think I have seen similar marks on an MS, but maybe not to that extent.  Perhaps it's actually a high AU?

Edited August 8, 2022 by EagleRJO

[VKurtB]

On 8/8/2022 at 10:24 AM, EagleRJO said:

I asked for some more pics of that second coin, which may just be a pic issue.  In the meantime, how about the attached 1884-CC Morgan?  It's also supposed to be BU, but there are quite a lot of marks and chatter on the obverse.  I think I have seen similar marks on an MS, but maybe not to that extent.  Perhaps it's actually a high AU?

It is BU. Looks like a closeup of a GSA holder to me. But even on this one, there’s some overexposure, especially the reverse. Whoever did these photos is no Roger Burdette, who is one of the better photo “correctors” out there. And that is coming from one who does not have a lot good to say about Roger. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by VKurtB

[EagleRJO]

It's in a GSA holder, but not sealed and no COA so it could be any old BU.  If I offer anything it will be at a BU price.

[Sandon]

   The 1884-CC looks like a typical "baggy" GSA Morgan dollar that would grade MS 61 or 62 by today's standards with lots of abrasions but unworn with original luster.  If you can get a picture of the entire holder, the odds are it reads "Carson City Silver Dollar" instead of "Carson City Uncirculated Silver Dollar".  The coins that GSA employees considered too "scratched" or "tarnished" were separated into these holders and sold at a discount.  In the original mid-1970s sales, "uncirculated" 1882, 83, and 84-CCs were sold for $30, while the ones that were culled--including the better dates--were sold for $15 as "mixed years" coins chosen at random.  The culling was inconsistent, and some coins in "mixed years" holders have received higher grades than some in "uncirculated" holders.  Many of the "tarnished" coins now sell for premium prices as having attractive original "toning".  Per the "VAM book" 788,630 1884-CCs were sold as "uncirculated" and 159,008 as "mixed years".  The combined 962,638 represented nearly 85% of their original mintage!  

   All I could afford as a young teenager in 1974 was a single $15 "mixed years" coin, which turned out to be an 1883-CC that looks like the 1884-CC in the photo.  It's still the example of that date in my collection.  Some luckier buyers got an 1880, 81, 85, 90, 91 or even 79-CC!  

   RJO Eagle--Remember that a large percentage of existing "CC" dollars of these dates were sold in GSA holders, including some that have been removed from them.  While you should examine any coin and purportedly original holder that you purchase, I think that your distrust of GSA holders is misplaced. (I've read about fake NGC and PCGS holders but not GSA holders that have been counterfeited or opened and resealed with different coins.). Many dealers sold the coins in just the plastic holders, and a market has developed for the outer boxes and certificates for those who wish to have all of the "original" packaging.