Grade these Morgans

Well that explains the toning pattern on the 1879-S. The PCI inserts were infamous for imparting light pastel target toning on all white silver coins. This is more common for ASE's and this is the first example of a Morgan I have ever seen but I'm willing to wager money that the 1879-S was the PCI coin that crossed to PCGS MS64. Here is an example of an ASE with PCI insert toning.



As for matching the rest, here are my guesses which will correspond to my comments in my original post.

1879-S: MS64
1881-S: Unc Details QT
1884-O: MS62
1885: AU Details QT
1886: AU Details QT

And although this is what I think PCGS graded the coins, I'm actually hoping that I am wrong. I'm hoping that they liked the obverse of the 1881-S enough to call it market acceptable and gave it an MS62 as a net grade for the questionable nature of the reverse toning. The 1881-S is very pretty and will drive a premium for the toning whereas the toning on the 1884-O is rather run of the mill and will simply sell for MS62 money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

See my above post for which 2 graded

MD, while I get your concerns on coin #3 the progression is righteous plus has elevated chromatics and the reverse crecent tipped the scales to NT

 

I think it was the reverse crescent in combination with the correct toning correspondence from obverse to reverse that probably tipped the scales.

 

Haha leigh. I was editing my post to add that as you quoted me. That's funny. We think alike my friend

 

The obverse Blue to Purple makes me wonder a bit. That seems a bit unnatural to me-- it is progressive, but has that neon look.

 

Pacecar, are you going to divulge the grades soon?

 

I have a killer 21 with thick neon purple blue rim toning from an old tiny anacs holder.

 

I don't need to! You were SPOT on with your grades, even with the hopes that you were wrong on the 81-S. We need to pay more attention to you when you "speak" on toned coins. GREAT JOB!

1879 - S
http://www.pcgs.com/cert/80838213

1881 - S
http://www.pcgs.com/cert/80838212

1884 - O
http://www.pcgs.com/cert/80838211

1885 - P
http://www.pcgs.com/cert/80838210

1886 - P
http://www.pcgs.com/cert/80838208

 

I have to say, I bought the "raw" coins from a local friend of mine who is a dealer and the ex-president of the NCNA. He know that I have a love of the toners and whenever he gets some in, he will hold them for me. At our coin club meeting Thursday night I told him about the results and, of course, he was shocked. BUT, the very first thing out of his mouth was: "How much of a refund do I owe you?". I can't express enough how much of a "good guy" he is. I don't like 99% of the dealers out there, because they are only interested in how much can they make off of the collector. Just about every other dealer around here would've said "oh well" or something similar, but not him. I just wanted to put that out there, because he deserves the praise. And I did not ask for any money back from him. I told him that I bought them knowing there was a possibility that they could come back like this, although I was sure the 84-O would grade. Live and learn, then get Luvs.

 

Honestly, except for the first one, I am really surprised that any of them graded. It shows how subjective the toning market is. I have had many toners that I looked at in PCGS and NGC slabs, and wondered "how the hell did this thing grade?" The 79s is not an unusual toning pattern, but all of the others look to me like they were "assisted" in their acquisition of color. Can I prove that? Obviously not, but I do think that coins with that "Neon" quality, and dubious transition are suspect. Once again, I will reiterate that all of them had "chemical intervention," and the 79s had the least amount done, so it is most market acceptable. Toning is just too abrupt and vivid for me on all the others--it has the look of artificiality. This isn't to denigrate anybody, just my opinion as someone with a lot of experience in toned Morgans. I would have stayed away from the entire lot of them, as with the exception of the 79s, they are still questionable to me. I do suspect exposure to gassing, and it is extremely easy to do nowadays.

 

I couldn't pay more attention when Lehigh96 talks about toned coins.

 

In your experience, when Morgans are toned on both sides versus just one what is the chance that they are artificially toned? I'm not talking about edges that would be consistent with album toning, but true color on both sides of the coin.

 

In fairness, I had the MS62 and Unc Details QT mixed up. I thought the 1884-O would grade MS62, but hoped I was wrong and my wish was granted. I love the look of the obverse of the 1881-S and would be able to live with the questionable nature of the reverse toning. I'm pretty certain that I once owned a Morgan Dollar that had a gorgeous obverse that had a very similar color scheme. It wasn't the most vibrant colors and didn't have any rainbow progressions but in hand, the toning was stunning and mesmerizing. It was one of my favorite Morgans, but unfortunately, I can't find a photo of it.

 

I think that the large majority of Morgans that show toning are bag toned Morgans which will show a rainbow progression on one side with the possibility of minor toning on the reverse that will have the correct toning correspondence. For example, this Battle Creek 1886 shows the deepest toning on the obverse at 4:30 while the reverse shows the deepest toned are at 1:30 showing perfect toning correspondence.




Bag toning comprises the majority of toned Morgans on the market, but that doesn't mean there aren't Morgan Dollars that were toned due to different storage methods. For example, there are EOR toned Morgans, album toned Morgans, envelope toned Morgans, and those that have toned simply from contact with hydrogen sulfide gas in the atmosphere. It would be rare for an EOR coin to have toning on both sides since the one side is protected from air flow. Atmospheric toning is usually not as advanced as toning caused by a sulfur laden source like paper or canvas, and usually with be monochromatic in nature. Envelope toned coins usually present with a monochromatic toning rather than rainbow toning.

That leaves only album toned Morgans that should have rainbow toning on both sides. So when I see a Morgan Dollar that is completely covered on both sides with color, I expect the color to be consistent with that created by being housed in a coin album. Specifically, the toning should be most advanced at the peripheries of the coin with the centers displaying a color that is earlier in the toning progression. However, coin folders can cause a coin to form a more consistent monochromatic toning pattern and less of a target toning effect. Additionally, the coin must still follow the indicators of market acceptable toning which include proper color progressions and elevation chromatics.



Here is an example of a rather mundane Morgan Dollar which appears to be album toned with significant color on both sides of the coin. The toning is most advanced at the edges and the color progressions are fine. Now the toning on this coin is not dramatic enough to drive a real price premium so it would probably not face the same level of scrutiny that a coin with more dramatic toning would get, such as this 1881-S Morgan.



The originality of this coin is basically impossible to determine IMO. It is extremely rare to find a Morgan with monochromatic green toning much less with vibrant orange, violet, and blue on the other side. Could this toning have been caused by album toning? I simply don't know, but I owned this coin and the combination of proper elevation chromatics and overall look of the coin made me lean towards original toning that was at the very least, market acceptable. In the end, determining the originality of toning is a best guess proposition. If you are uncomfortable making that determination on your own, the best way to protect yourself is to only purchase NGC or PCGS certified coins or refuse to pay price premiums on raw toned coins.

 

Just to throw out a possibility, a cardboard album whose backing was sulfur-impregnated paper. Seems if left to itself long enough, such an effect might happen.