Picked these up today for a very good price. Still bad at the AT/NT thing. The toning on the 95 O is VERY strong and the toning on the 96 PL (DMPL?) is kinda ugly until the light hits it right & then BANG!, beautiful. Sorry about the photos but the best I could do at the moment. Please give your thoughts on toning & grades. Thanks! 1895 O 1896 PL or maybe DMPL1904 SThanks for looking!
I'm not a Morgan guru, but doesn't the 95 obverse look cleaned or rubbed or something? It's hard to tell from the pictures, but something just doesn't look "right". The 96 looks like it has some nice cameo/PL going on.
I know they're not the prettiest, but the 95 O filled the second to last hole in my New Orleans date set album & they were both really good deals. So does anyone want to say AT or NT? I think the 95 O is album toned because the person I got them from had several with similar color/pattern. All different years, like a date set. Thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming!
I already did. Here's the deal, yes that coloration is not unusual on album coins, but that is with unc album coins. With coins with that much wear, that kind of toning is all but unheard of. I'm not gonna say it's impossible, but it's very unlikely. So I'm going with the odds.
No. I'll leave that to the nutcakes who like to collect tarnished coins on those arbitrary standards.
I don't necessarily think the first coin is AT, but I do think it was cleaned and has subsequently retoned, which is reason enough to steer clear.
I bought it yesterday to fill a hole in my New Orleans date set. I wouldn't even find an AG 3 for the price I paid for this one so I'm happy with it for now.
I have seen it an owned several nicely toned circulated examples but usually a circulated coin would have much of the toning rubbed off even in the fields so it's either AT or secondary toning and I am inclined to agree with GDJMSP that the most likely explanation is the coin had help.
Shane/G, How can you tell the difference between a "cleaned NT" coin and a "cleaned AT" coin to the extent that you think the AT route is the most likely? I want to believe you, but logic and my experience says otherwise. Just curious as to how you think "cleaned AT" is most likely, as I can't get there from here....Mike
I would not worry too much about the source of the toning on the 1895-O with the rim problems that coin will never go into a graded holder IMO.
In hand the ris is actually not that bad. I had a raw 1892 CC $1 that had worse and more numerous dings and it came back NGC MS 63.
Mike - I thought I explained my reasoning for my comments pretty clearly. And I never even mentioned anything about cleaning. If I were take a stab at answering your question - I don't know of a way to tell the difference.
I'd like to remove the toning on the reverse of the '95 O while keeping the obverse how it is. Any suggestions???
Terrible idea ! The coin is already suspect. Even try that and you'd end up with a messed with coin that nobody would even consider wanting to own.