 | | 
07-02-2009, 06:59 PM
|
#16 (permalink)
| | silvereagle
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 162
My Mood:  |
ok i got better pictures and the toned coin isnt as good as i hoped, but i did pick up another one do you think it would make a ms coin, thanks for your input.
| 
|  |
|
07-02-2009, 07:28 PM
|
#17 (permalink)
| | Indian Buffalo Gatherer
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: San Antonio
Posts: 6,113
My Mood:  |
No the coin isn't a MS coin. AU is as good as it gets with the coins pictured.
| |
| | |
07-02-2009, 11:48 PM
|
#18 (permalink)
| | Morgans Morgans Morgans
Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: New York
Posts: 2,898
My Mood:  |
Yep I still say around AU55, from the second pics it looks like it may have been artificially toned as well.
| 
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:45 AM
|
#19 (permalink)
| | Coin Hoarder
Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Out West
Posts: 1,112
My Mood:  |
I agree with the low AU club. The obv toning is nice but the reverse looks like smoke toning like when someone AT's the coin with a cigar (I'm smoking one right now so maybe I just have cigar on the brain  )
Nice coin regardless for a low mintage coin.
__________________
“Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”
—James Madison
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 11:34 AM
|
#20 (permalink)
| | Numismatist
Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,746
My Mood:  |
1886 New Orleans I had a few graded that look much like this 1886. some were MS-61 & AU58.
but the wear on the cheek & breast fathers is there so AU-55 or if your lucky Au-58
__________________
no one right 100% of the time  
***The only dumb question is the one not asked***
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 11:48 AM
|
#21 (permalink)
| | Rare coin dealer
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,629
| Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinslack  ok i got better pictures and the toned coin isnt as good as i hoped, but i did pick up another one do you think it would make a ms coin, thanks for your input. | To me, both coins, as pictured, look questionable in terms of color. The first one looks AU, in large part, because of the eagle's breast. But the second one looks like it could be uncirculated (though I'd still guess that it's an AU coin which was toned over to try to make to look unc.) To those who say the second coin is definitely AU, where are you seeing obvious wear? I'm not seeing it. Thanks.
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:11 PM
|
#22 (permalink)
| | Morgans Morgans Morgans
Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: New York
Posts: 2,898
My Mood: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Feld To me, both coins, as pictured, look questionable in terms of color. The first one looks AU, in large part, because of the eagle's breast. But the second one looks like it could be uncirculated (though I'd still guess that it's an AU coin which was toned over to try to make to look unc.) To those who say the second coin is definitely AU, where are you seeing obvious wear? I'm not seeing it. Thanks. | There is only one coin, just 2 sets of pics. I would agree it looks like someone toned the coin to try to make it look MS. Imo I still say AU55 details AT.
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:23 PM
|
#23 (permalink)
| | Rare coin dealer
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,629
| Quote:
Originally Posted by raider34 There is only one coin, just 2 sets of pics. I would agree it looks like someone toned the coin to try to make it look MS. Imo I still say AU55 details AT. | Thanks. As much as I appreciate how the same coin can look vastly different based on two sets of images, I still thought that was two different coins. I saw spots, stains and marks apparent in one set of images that I didn't see in the other, and didn't see any obvious common markers. Of course that begs the question - which set of images, if either, does the coin really look like?
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:27 PM
|
#24 (permalink)
| | Coin Collector
Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 1,407
|
Nice morgan. I don't believe this coin would make the 58 grade. Wear on the Eagles breast is disappointing. Is that rim damage on the REV ?
In any event, I would venture to say it's a nice AU55. It's a keeper.
__________________ 
Last edited by coinman0456; 07-03-2009 at 12:34 PM.
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:32 PM
|
#25 (permalink)
| | Coin Collector
Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 1,407
|
ok after seeing the new pics I'm going to lower the grade I initially gave from 55 to 50.
Still, not a bad coin. Don't be to disappointed.
The second example I would suggest is an AU58. Another nice Coin.
__________________
Last edited by coinman0456; 07-03-2009 at 12:35 PM.
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:33 PM
|
#26 (permalink)
| | Morgans Morgans Morgans
Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: New York
Posts: 2,898
My Mood: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Feld Thanks. As much as I appreciate how the same coin can look vastly different based on two sets of images, I still thought that was two different coins. I saw spots, stains and marks apparent in one set of images that I didn't see in the other, and didn't see any obvious common markers. Of course that begs the question - which set of images, if either, does the coin really look like? | I agree, from the first pics imo it looked like NT, but from the second set it looks AT. I circled some areas on the reverse that imo show signs of wear.
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:37 PM
|
#27 (permalink)
| | Rare coin dealer
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,629
| Quote:
Originally Posted by raider34 I agree, from the first pics imo it looked like NT, but from the second set it looks AT. I circled some areas on the reverse that imo show signs of wear. | I agree that there are signs of wear in the set of images in which you made notations on the reverse. But I didn't see obvious wear in the images that appeared below those.
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:43 PM
|
#28 (permalink)
| | Coin Collector
Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 1,407
| 1886-o
Quote:
Originally Posted by raider34 There is only one coin, just 2 sets of pics. I would agree it looks like someone toned the coin to try to make it look MS. Imo I still say AU55 details AT. |
Raider, I think they are two separate examples.
__________________ | |
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:47 PM
|
#29 (permalink)
| | Rare coin dealer
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,629
| Quote:
Originally Posted by coinman0456 Raider, I think they are two separate examples. | I'm glad someone else thinks so - they sure looked like different coins to me. I was thinking that the next to last set of images was of the coin discussed at the beginning of the thread and that the last set of images was of another/different coin. Either way, as posted, it's somewhat confusing.
| |
| | |
07-03-2009, 12:59 PM
|
#30 (permalink)
| | Morgans Morgans Morgans
Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: New York
Posts: 2,898
My Mood: | Quote:
Originally Posted by coinman0456 Raider, I think they are two separate examples. |  You guys are right, that's my mistake I only focused on the second set of pics, and not the last ones. AS Mark said the original pics, and the second set of pics are of the first coin, AND then the last set of pics are a new coin.
| |
| | | |
Would you like to support CoinTalk?
Coin Talk Code of Honor
1. Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.
2. Keep it clean, like a 1950s family television show.
3. If you don't like the coin, don't trash the person.
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
|  » Newsletter | | » Sponsors |
| | » Recent Posts | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | » Today's Top Posters | | Top Posters in Last 1 Days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
