ldhair Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 About 30 years ago a good dealer friend ask me to help close his mom's coin shop. He and his mom ran the shop for many years after dad passed. I had a blast helping them sort stuff. We found a lot of fun coins hiding in the junk. This is one we took a long look at and said, What were they thinking? The mint mark was removed. The 1895 Morgan is a tough coin. The O or S mint coins would be about $500 to $1000 today. Without a mint mark, it would be a proof. Maybe $40,000 today. Coinbuf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhair Posted March 11, 2023 Author Share Posted March 11, 2023 rrantique and Coinbuf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandon Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 The date has apparently been altered as well. Compare the "5" in the date to that on a genuine 1895-O or 1895-S. The coin was probably a common date from the 1890s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Colonial Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 All circulating Morgan's are common, except by TPG grade. The Philadelphia proofs are moderately scarce. The branch mint proofs are legitimately rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 On 3/11/2023 at 2:06 PM, World Colonial said: The branch mint proofs are legitimately rare. But since no "branch Mint" had the equipment to make a proof, they have a legitimate population of -0- Henri Charriere, Zebo and zadok 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Colonial Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 On 3/11/2023 at 4:28 PM, RWB said: But since no "branch Mint" had the equipment to make a proof, they have a legitimate population of -0- Fair enough, I've also heard these called specimens or something like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhair Posted March 11, 2023 Author Share Posted March 11, 2023 On 3/11/2023 at 9:58 AM, Sandon said: The date has apparently been altered as well. Compare the "5" in the date to that on a genuine 1895-O or 1895-S. The coin was probably a common date from the 1890s. Please check your facts before posting false information. There is no question about the coin being an 1895. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIII Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 following Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIII Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 The date looks correct to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted March 12, 2023 Share Posted March 12, 2023 (edited) On 3/11/2023 at 5:48 PM, World Colonial said: Fair enough, I've also heard these called specimens or something like it. Those coins that are entirely compliant proofs, had to have been struck in Philadelphia from mintmarked dies. Nothing secret or nefarious - simply "perfect" samples for a branch mint to compare their output to, or made for special use at the receiving mint. Other than my few examinations, I don't think any of the candidate coins have been objectively evaluated. Most likely fall into the same category as the bunches of "proof" bust halves and quarters. It's simply been too easy for some "expert" to declare it "looks like a proof" but without any empirical data. Edited March 12, 2023 by RWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandon Posted March 12, 2023 Share Posted March 12, 2023 On 3/11/2023 at 6:00 PM, ldhair said: Please check your facts before posting false information. There is no question about the coin being an 1895. I had no intention of causing any offense with my comment and am surprised that any was taken, as it is understood that the coin was altered. I would never intentionally post "false information"! My statement that "the date has apparently been altered" is a statement of opinion based on your photo, which shows the "5" in the date appearing to be heavier and thicker than the other numerals and slanting too far to the left when compared to both my own circulated 1895-O and 1895-S (photos below) and to photos of authenticated examples, such as those on the NGC Coin Explorer. I can't magnify your photo much and could only base my opinion on what I could see. I just checked the VAMworld site and saw no 1895-O or S obverse with a heavy "5" that looked like the one in your photo. (The dates are not shown on some of the VAM varieties.) Respectfully, why do you say that "there is no question about the coin being an 1895"? 1895-O date 1895-S date CIII 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadok Posted March 12, 2023 Share Posted March 12, 2023 On 3/11/2023 at 7:07 PM, RWB said: Those coins that are entirely compliant proofs, had to have been struck in Philadelphia from mintmarked dies. Nothing secret or nefarious - simply "perfect" samples for a branch mint to compare their output to, or made for special use at the receiving mint. Other than my few examinations, I don't think any of the candidate coins have been objectively evaluated. Most likely fall into the same category as the bunches of "proof" bust halves and quarters. It's simply been too easy for some "expert" to declare it "looks like a proof" but without any empirical data. ...same old bone...keep chewing on it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coinbuf Posted March 12, 2023 Share Posted March 12, 2023 (edited) "what were they thinking" My first thought is they were trying to profit by deception, it may have been good enough to fool some new or less educated collectors at some time, heck it could deceive lots of get rich quick types today. The date looks ok from what I can see in the photo. Edited March 12, 2023 by Coinbuf rrantique 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
