Whats the chances this is an original proof set or picked?

I have no idea where they got their numbers. You can safely add a zero to that number based on recent sales

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Catching luster and detail together is one of the really hard things to do in a picture. This is especially true for certified items where you are taking photos through the plastic.

I have found that luster sometimes shows up better when the light source is higher above the subject. Sometimes I have to take two pictures at different angles to show how the coin really looks. Here is an example. Both photos are true.

 

The price of more common date Proof Morgan Dollars has done nothing but drop since I bought this one in PR-64. It's hard to believe that the PR-65 coins have done that much better. The red dot on the reverse is from the camera, not the coin. And no, it was not graded as a cameo for reasons I do not understand.

 

It also implies a total dislike for toned coins. Extraordinary...how tastes have changed.

 

And with that, is the notion that tastes may change again. As the years have gone on I've gotten more and more hesitant to pull the trigger on premiums for toned coinage with that fact in mind.

 

I agree - it is now in the eye of the beholder and buyer. Not all toning is beautiful or attractive, but I see some that I consider spectacular.

 

As mentioned, coins wrapped in tissue paper and then shipped in an envelope. There are a very few 19th century original sets in cases, but those cases were custom made by outside firms for the mint. John Pittman had a few of those early cased sets from the Mint with the invoices that showed the cost of the coin and the cost for the custom case (and who made it), which I think was $3.

These original cased sets are EXTREMELY rare, the number still in existence can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.

And when they come up at auction they typically get individually slabbed and broken up.

 

It would be very interesting if anyone could offer a possible explanation of why it didn't get a Cameo designation.

 

Okay, Why did those two Proof coins get the cameo designantion?



And this one which barely has any cameo at all. especially on the reverse. The Cameo designation is very inconsistently applied.

 

You would think there would be some standard reflection ratio test for cameos. I have read for PL coins you are supposed to be able to read ruler indications at certain distances in the mirror. I’ve noticed on the deeper PL coins with cameos that there is a very distinct/crisp shadow of the devices projected onto a sheet of paper if you shine a light directly on them. For example:



But a run of the mill, but nicer 64 Morgan, with a great cartwheel but nowhere near PL:

 

Thank you for your prompt reply.

 

Very informative! Thanks guys! saved me a very expensive lesson