Hello, Coin Talkers! A jeweler in Buffalo, NY showed me this Morgan thinking it was genuine and asked my opinion. He thought he had a one-of-a kind find and I hated to disappoint him. Though he tested it and it was silver, and the weight was good, I broke his heart with the explanation. If you look very, very closely, you can see a severely flattened, faint, phantom "2" where it should be. Also notice the toning in that area is missing compared to other flat areas where there is toning. I am guessing this was faked many years - maybe decades - ago because it isn't siper shiny in that spot, and some of the toning actually returned to part of the area. Has anyone else ever seen or heard of Morgans being altered like this?
Not seen that before. No idea what they were trying unless it was to re engrave the date for some kind of commemorative purposes
I think the coin MAY have been struck with a grease filled die. If there wasnt any evidence of filing or tooling in that area then its probably real. I hope he didnt pitch it The coin looks genuine to me but a reverse photo would help to be 100% @messydesk
Looks like a grease filled die error to me. I can't see any evidence of alteration from this photo. The 2 is slightly showing through because the grease was not sufficient enough to fill the entire device.
Weird. It's possible someone was trying to alter it to be a 1901 (a much rarer date, and a huge payout if you can trick someone). Maybe they got caught or didn't finish their project for some reason?
Oops! I forgot to mention that an an angle, there is a slight divot where the 2 should be. It was clearly and intentionally buffed out. Sorry.
I see the slight depression. That is where the grease was surrounding the device. Again, better pics can change my mind if I see evidence of tooling but it sure looks like a normal grease filled device to me.
The reason why I think it was buffed out is because of how flat and wide the missing 2 is. It's almost two times as wide. Plus, if you look at the toning between the first 1 and 9, the same degree of toning should be present between the 9 and the 1 to the right, but it is not prevalent. Hmmm....
Here is an authentic example of a grease filled die. Hardcore Morgan collectors actively seek these types of errors. In god we tru_t Photo courtesy of vamworld BTW, 1921 Morgans were rushed through production with very poor quality control. As such, this date contains more errors than ANY other date in the entire series and its not even close.
The lack of toning in that area can be explained by how the grease changed the surface structure of the metal flow during the strike and also the slight depression putting it at an uneven level with the rest of the field.
I searched for filled digit @ vamworld with no such luck. Im not good at using the search feature over there. If this IS real, its the 1st missing digit Morgan ive ever seen. If its the only one out there, then>
It's not. A missing digit in the date is neat but it's only one digit, not most or all of the date. That plus the condition of the coin make it worth around $50. Interesting but not worth slabbing. If it can be vammed we would put on the listing that it is known to come with a grease filled 2.
Oh ye of little faith I think its unique and cool as hell!! Yes, a common error, but, if you rearrange the order of the digits it spells 9-1-1 Is this coin telling us the future? Remember that one guy with the segs 11 cent piece??, i would have him make a muvie about the coin, so its famous before it hits the auction.
Close inspection should make it easy to determine grease-filled vs. removed digit. A filled die can actually produce a depression on the coin where the missing design element is supposed to be, since the die "filling" can be above the surface of the die. If this is a legit grease-filled die, then it will be easy to sell for a nice premium over a typical AU 1921. There are no other missing digit filled dies known in the series.