There's AT, then there's AT

Both of these Morgans are AT. But they're not quite the same, are they.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The top one is tolerable the bottom one is fugly. I wouldn't even want it in the same room with my collection.

 

Oil slick in a puddle following a rainstorm comes to mind. Sort of like the garishly painted Elgin Marbles......

 

Top one tolerable. Bottom one is a crying shame and I would consider it Damaged. JMHO.

 

the bottom one you can almost see it in the dark

the top is ok

 

The rainbow colors are "Psychedelic Baby"

 

Egads!

 

Top one okay the bottom one I'd give to my mother-in-law.

 

Past time for it but that second one needs a good solid dipping.

 

If I were writing the auction catalog for those two coins, I'd call the first "ugly" and the second one "hideous."

 

I like the first coin. Very pleasing to my eye.

 

Same as others, top coin only.

 

Don't get too attached to the top coin. It's not good. Given the base grade, which is EF-AU, you shouldn't get hurt of you pay a fair price for it, but that kind of color on an Mint State coin that is called a "monster toner" is a trap. The color is not natural.

 

Top almost believable. Bottom looks like it wa in Chernobyl

 

I can understand a modest increase that toning brings to a coin. The prices I've seen on some toners is crazy

It's an 1889. I just hope it's not a Carson City! Somebody ruined that coin.

 

89 -cC so bloody expensive in high grade even cleaned I find it highly unlikely

 

True, but people do crazy things for money.

 

yuck!

 

I feel as though most or all of this would better pertain to the lower coin than the upper coin. The toning in the first example looks remarkably legit to me and it's a coin I'd be happy to own, no matter what anyone else has to say about it.

Horses for Courses, as they say.