• 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.

Blushing Babe

Started by SkyMan,

20 posts in this topic

SkyMan

SkyMan

Posted
Posted

It's time for another Battle Creek. This is BC 2, lot 1138, MS 66*.

 

This Babe is either pink/orange or orange/pink depending on how she is tilted. The coin is very high end for the grade. The fuzzy line at the bottom of the neck is on the slab. What may look like hits/dings/rub on the image are actually toning breaks. There is very minimal rub on the eyebrow, and one minor ding at about 4 o'clock to the lips, which the image makes look much worse than it is. There is a minor roll mark on the breast of the eagle. Other than that this coin is clean.

 

1138_66_489-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeInFL

MikeInFL

Posted
Posted
Beautiful AT. The Doctor is in !

 

AT? Are you kidding me? Since when can AT coins have textile? This coin is NT!

 

Bruce,

 

What characteristics make you believe this coin is textile toned?

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

p.s. This coin sure looks questionable to me (and I'm not just talking about the contrast/saturation which have clearly been messed with) -- in fact it doesn't look like any Battle Creek I've seen, but I'm admittedly not a close follower of these coins. Just looking to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mirrored Morgan

Mirrored Morgan

Posted
Posted
Beautiful AT. The Doctor is in !

 

AT? Are you kidding me? Since when can AT coins have textile? This coin is NT!

 

Textile? I do not see textile on this Morgan. The colors are extremely vibrant with a nice rainbow covering. The BC Morgans are some of the best toned coins out there.,

 

Come to think of it, don't they call it "Bag Toning"

 

Rainbowtoner005-1.jpg

 

Edited to add picture

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsshog40

bsshog40

Posted
Posted

That is a very nice Morgan. The toning is very vibrant. It almost looks AT to me, but I'm not a professional of morgans by far. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruceswar

Bruceswar

Posted
Posted
Beautiful AT. The Doctor is in !

 

AT? Are you kidding me? Since when can AT coins have textile? This coin is NT!

 

Bruce,

 

What characteristics make you believe this coin is textile toned?

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

p.s. This coin sure looks questionable to me (and I'm not just talking about the contrast/saturation which have clearly been messed with) -- in fact it doesn't look like any Battle Creek I've seen, but I'm admittedly not a close follower of these coins. Just looking to learn.

 

Mike if you will look just in front of the mouth you will see a light textile. MM This is what they call Textile. Bag toning is usally the morgans you see with bands of color. Minus the Juice this image has the colors do not seem out of place to me. I am sure skyman will reaffirm what I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mirrored Morgan

Mirrored Morgan

Posted
Posted
Mike if you will look just in front of the mouth you will see a light textile. MM This is what they call Textile. Bag toning is usally the morgans you see with bands of color. Minus the Juice this image has the colors do not seem out of place to me. I am sure skyman will reaffirm what I think.

 

It is very slight but I do see it now, thanks for pointing this out Bruce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stman

stman

Posted
Posted
Beautiful AT. The Doctor is in !

 

AT? Are you kidding me? Since when can AT coins have textile? This coin is NT!

 

I'm not commenting on this coin, but do you think AT cannot be present just because there might be textile? Do you think other parts of the coin can be enhanced with NT present? Myself, I never go by one characteristic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyMan

SkyMan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

First off, the in hand colors of the above coin are certainly within norms for toned Morgans. The above image was taken by Laura D. I quite like her work, but I would agree that the contrast/hue is a little jacked up on this image... however, remember, the reason the BC coins went for such bonzo bucks is the vibrancy of the coins' colors.

 

Second, Carson City, if you want to see the discussions on Battle Creek being AT vs. NT I recommend that you go to the PCGS boards, type in Battle Creek in the search engine and let her rip. You will find MORE than enough info on the coins (probably a couple hundred pages in total). I assume you are a big boy and can make up your own mind.

 

Third, this coin does not have textile patterns, what you see is just the toning pattern, for example, look under the US in pluribus and you'll see some comparable toning breaks.

 

If you'd like to see a BC coin with textile patterns (or just some more BC coins) see BC1_1362 in the signature set I created at:

 

http://www.collectors-society.com/registry/coins/ViewPersonalCollection.aspx?UserCollectionID=623

 

BTW, BC1_1362 is also a good place to look as to the whole AT thing. If you believe that it is AT there really is no need to even attempt to discuss the point.

 

Next, textile toning is associated with bag toning. The coins have picked up the textile pattern from the bags that they are residing in.

 

Finally, MM, I like your coin! thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John Martinez

John Martinez

Posted
Posted

Hi, SkyMan

 

I think stman has a valid question when he asks...

AT cannot be present just because there might be textile?

 

One can not put a coin in a comprable if not exact bag, do the AT thing and not get the textile toning?

 

From what I have read on the subject so far.... AT or NT it is temperature and chemistry. The fact NT was done it mint bags, well mint bags are chemical in nature. They are processed fibers hence, the chemical element in toning, whether AT or NT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stman

stman

Posted
Posted

Actually my point was it might not be a good idea to assume one characteristic of NT makes the whole coin NT. Many things can and do get applied to coins that may start out NT. Maybe a little enhancement or what not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John Martinez

John Martinez

Posted
Posted

I could not tell AT from NT so I stay away from them. That's not to say that I do not admire them, as in the original post here. Good looking coin. The only way I'm going to learn is to look at a bunch of both and ask questions.

 

My question is from a novice stand point with the current knowledge - or in this case lack thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyMan

SkyMan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Actually my point was it might not be a good idea to assume one characteristic of NT makes the whole coin NT. Many things can and do get applied to coins that may start out NT. Maybe a little enhancement or what not.

 

I have certainly seen coins in my 19 years of collecting that I believe had some NT that were then "enhanced" with AT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing