Dark Proof Morgans. Should they be dipped?

[JIM F.]

Asking opinions. Any experience/opinions on cracking out and dipping ugly dark Proof Morgan dollars?

 

-Jim

 

[dragon]

Dipping a heavily toned proof Morgan is 99% of the time a very big mistake, as you're going to end up with a washed out, lifeless, steel grey, virtually unsaleable coin. You also risk bringing out hairlines and other surface blemishes once concealed by the toning thus lowering the grade. I would not recommend dipping any proof Morgan dollar unless the toning is extremely light, and even then I wouldn't do it.

 

dragon

[JIM F.]

Here's the proof I've had for many years. Has a bit of toning. You think I should submit "raw" or dip out the tarnish first??

 

Thanks.

 

[Dermott]

Might try submitting it to NCS and see if they can do anything with it.

 

If you're THAT convinced that it needs to be dipped, then you might as well send it to a professional service rather than try it yourself... especially with something like a Proof Morgan. Playing with clad proofs is one thing and may be worth the price for the expirimental value... but I wouldn't try it on a Morgan proof.

[JIM F.]

Here's another proof for considration.

[EZ_E]

I like the coin "as is". Why mess with it? Learn to appreciate the beauty that toning has to offer to the collector.

[JIM F.]

Good question. Many collectors these days ask, if it's such a nice coin, why not in a PCGS or NGC holder.

I guess a Catch-22 for us pure collectors.

 

[JIM F.]

OK. Any thought on the grades if I submit these 2 Proof Morgans "as is"

THANKS FOR ALL OPINIONS.

 

 

[bigd5]

I'd submit both coins "as is". Maybe a light acetone dip before they go in to make sure there isn't any residue of any kind on the surface from their old storage spot.

Unless the images aren't accurate, I'd say the coins look fine, and not the "jet black" that can be found with many Morgan proof examples.

I also wouldn't bother submitting them unless you were planning on selling them, or preferrred a slab as your new storage method.

They seem to have been doing fine in your current storage method.

[BillJones]

My advice is leave them alone. I much prefer original coins, and once the toning has gotten very dark, you are not going to improve the piece by dipping it.

 

If the coin has the classic blue toning with the Proof mirrors showing though, you could LOWER the value of the considerably by dipping it. Advanced collectors prize such coins, and the grading services give them very high grading numbers even if there are some hairlines present.

 

Bottomline: leave the coins alone!

[291fifth]

Don't do it. Very dark toned coins generally don't dip well.

[CarlWohlforth]

I like both those Morgans. Dipping the '96 would lower the appeal and value to me.

 

I can't tell what they would grade. For proofs it is very easy to miss hairlines in photos. If I had to guess I'd guess around 64 with the '96 a little higher than the other. If the '96 ends up lower that is the one I would want to buy because I like its look.

[gmarguli]

These coins are NOT "dark toned" by any stretch of the imagination. You can find black toned proof Morgans. Those are dark toned. These have light toning.

 

While I think the look of the 1896 is OK, it is the type of coin that I bet would clean up to a strong B&W look which would be easily salable.

 

The 1882 has a so-so look to me and I don't think either as is or 100% brilliant would make a big difference when going to sell them.

 

If you are going to have them dipped then spend the $30 or so on each coin and have NCS do it. From what I have seen I think they do an excellent job with a vast majority of the coins submitted.

 

[BushMan]

If you are going to have them dipped then spend the $30 or so on each coin and have NCS do it. From what I have seen I think they do an excellent job with a vast majority of the coins submitted.

I'm in complete agreement with Greg. Any additional help NCS could provide would make that $30 expense a very worthwhile investment. I think the 1896 is a super coin. I wish you good luck.

[PQSeated]

That 1896 proof Morgan looks like it could be a DCAM maybe after a trip to NCS. PCGS only has graded eight 1896 proof Morgans DCAM. It would be worth a lot of money if it is a DCAM. The trip to NCS would be well worth the money. You should even have it graded by NGC and maybe get a UCAM.

[RGT]

It was just a couple of weeks ago we were all saddened to hear of the demise of an original 1877 gold proof set. Most of the coins had been "curated" to get the higher grade or DCAM description. Most everyone agreed how sad the current state of affairs is that all these nice original coins are turning into "headlights".

 

Now it seems that many here are advising the same treatment of some lovely proof Morgans. I think the coins look great just as they are and I'd hate to see them altered in any way. I know the money motivation is there and likely they would grade and sell higher after being messed with, but it would be just another tragic loss of an original coin in my view.

 

[TomB]

I would suggest that if you don't like the coins the way they are that you simply sell them and buy coins you do like. After all, once the coin is stripped you cannot put its clothes back on.

 

By the way, the 1896 looks to have a die chip in the 6 while the 1882 looks like it has a die crack through the top of PLURIBUS. Is this true?

[JIM F.]

I've looked closer at these Morgans. The 1896 fields look almost black when in dim lighting, but shine like mirrors when in light - my thought is that whatever is making the fields appear black under dim light perhaps is a distraction to collectors. The struck portion of the coin is white and frosty under all lighting.

 

The 1882 looks nice and pretty much the same under all lighting. Maybe I should leave it alone.

 

Thanks for your opinions on the topic.