Vess that beak does look funny , wish I had my coins & book with me to compare .:smile:hatch::hammer:rzage
On second look, the base of the '1' not only looks fat but it looks angled as well. Also, the Y at the end of Liberty in the head band not only looks small but the top lines look curvy. These should be straight. Also, on the example pics I posted, the eight appears to be just slightly bigger than the 9, where as on yours the 9 appears to be slightly bigger than the 8. Ok, I think I'm done. Have I convinced anyone yet? (BTW, I haven't been looking at this the whole time. I just came back to it. )
Everything looked good to me at first, but I now notice one glaring problem.... Look at the 8 in the date. It is thin, with large spaces in between the loops. Check every other 1890-CC you can find, the 8 is thick, and the space in between the loops is small, and oval shaped. I rarely look at Morgans, but that's my view. The 8 looks fake. Could be the photos though.
Also someone mentioned the beak being short. I just noticed this too. I've never bothered to look at the beak before. Of course there could be a variety with a short beak, we need a Morgan expert to help us out. But right now I don't like the look of this coin.
I havent looked at it but Id think it unlikely its been altered. an 1890cc in low grade is simply not worth the effort.
Checked my Encylopedia of Morgan & Peace Dollars , couldn't find a MM like that listed for 1890-CC , though mine is a 2nd addition and could of missed it . Also a enlarged image of the MM would help . rzage
I'm prone to agree. The C on the right looks like it may be alittle low. A close up of the mintmark would be great!! Speedy
Yes, you would think. But I'd think it wouldn't be worth the effort stealing catalytic converters either. Yet a bunch just got stolen locally over the weekend. Along with brass signs from cemeteries that showed up at a scrap yard. Seems many are looking to make a quick buck any way they can these days. There's not just one, or two, or three odd features on this coin. There are several that are not normal that have been pointed out here. I'll even add another. I now think the R in Pluribus looks too big which also seems to be commonly screwed up on counterfeit Morgans. Anyway, the guy needs to figure out what to do. I would try to work out a deal with the seller, letting him know you don't think it is genuine. If he screams about it, tell him you're willing to contact ebay and take the negative. That's what I would do at this point. Tell him you'll give him 35.00 and take it. If he agrees, save the e-mail for proof until you get it. Pay with credit card so you can back charge if necessary. If he refuses, turn it in. I don't think somebody else should be buying it. One way or another, I would look into it further to try to figure out if it is authentic. If it's not, worst case scenario, you have a very good counterfeit to study in hand that you didn't have to pay all that much for. If it is real, you get a better deal than you thought. I wouldn't send him full price for it though and if he complained, I'd turn it into ebay. Take the negative and save your money. Everybody's got one or two negatives these days. Things happen.
Thanks. They definitely don't look the same. The one on the right looks very open to me. If you end up buying it, be sure and weigh and measure it. I'm really wondering now.
There are no MM in Van Allen & Malliss' VAM book with a MM so close to the ribbon , there is one where the C on the right almost touches the ribbon but the other C is lower , and they are both tilted to the left , this coins left C looks tilted right . rzage Like I said mine is a 2nd edition so maybe they found a different MM later .
Toning for the wear pattern of such a coin looks unatural to me. Not the definitive answer, though...