The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

High 5, that is tremendous. If the toning were on the obverse, you could make an argument for a 6.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

+1

 

Agree with the above. 5

 

You 'kids' fooled me at first. Didn't take me long though. 46-s PCGS slabbed, graded MS-64 - Manners and respect go far

 

It’s a 5 for me.
Great color but being on the reverse keeps it from a 6 (I’m personally not one that focuses too much on obverse vs reverse but the market considers obverse toners better).

 

Bye!

 

Then let's see a picture of it in the PCGS slab or the PCGS pictures? We can only judge a coin based on the pictures you provide. The ones you posted made the coin look obviously artificially toned. If you were to provide better (i.e., more accurate) photos, we may also have different opinions.

For the record, when you ask for someone to give their opinion of your coin, then don't be offended when they do just that. An opinion of your coin expressed online based on sub-par photos is not a personal attack on you - thus, "manners and respect" are not in play here. You asked for opinions, and you got them...

 

High 5 for me on the Morgan. That reverse is huge

 

Ok, since no more responses. I would agree with the consensus. It is a very high 5, but the toning is on the reverse. Were it on the obverse, it would be a poster boy for monster status. I have thought about having it crossed to NGC, to get the star, and have the reverse mounted in front. However, I have owned it just the way it is for years, and that works for me.

 

The PCGS Rattler holder provides more value than the NGC Star ever could.

 

That is what I figure. Besides, this is one I won’t sell. This was one of my nicest toners, and I had hundreds of them. I turned down $1000 for this coin, as it has sentimental value.

 

I agree with @Lehigh96 that the rattler is worth more than a new holder (NGC or PCGS). Plus it helps show that the coin has been stable since the late 1980s.

And I'd say $1k is low on that coin. I'd expect it to go for quite a bit more.

 

Summary
Rd. 1: 1883-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Obv]...CT -> 3.6 (Mid) vs You -> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 2: 1880 Morgan PCGS MS62 [Obv]...CT -> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 3: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS65 [Rev]...CT -> 3 (Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 4: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS65 [Obv]...CT -> 4.6 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 5: 1880-S Morgan NGC MS66* [Obv]...CT -> 3.2 (Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 6: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS?? [Rev]...CT -> 3.5 (Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 7: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT-> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 8: 1939-D Lincoln PCGS MS65RB [Obv]...CT-> 4.1 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 9: 1972-D Ike PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT-> 2.3 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 2 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 10: 1892 GB Half Crown PCGS MS64 [Dual]...CT-> 4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 11: 1967 UK Half Crown PCGS MS65+ [Dual]...CT-> 3 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 12: 1963 Franklin NGC MS65+* FBL [Rev]...CT-> 4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 13: 1884-O Morgan PCGS MS63+ [Obv]...CT -> 5 (High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 14: 1899 GB 6 Pence PCGS MS65 [Dual]...CT-> 5 (High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 15: 1926 F.I.C. Piastre PCGS AU58 [Dual]...CT-> 3 (Mid) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 16: 1904 USP Peso NGC PF62 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 17: 1944 Jeff Nickel PCGS MS 66 [Obv]...CT-> 4.8 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 18: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS 66+ [Obv]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 19: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS 68+ [Obv]...CT-> 6 (Monster) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 20: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS 66+ [Obv]...CT-> 5.3 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 21: 1880-S Morgan NGC MS 66* [Obv]...CT-> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 22: 1941-D Jeff Nickel NGC MS 67* 5FS [Dual]...CT-> 4.9 (Mid-High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 23: 1961 Franklin 50c PCGS PR 65 [Dual]...CT-> 5.3 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 24: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 61* [Obv]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 25: 1941-D Jeff Nickel PCGS MS 66 FS [Dual]...CT-> 3.6 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 26: 1708 GB Shilling PCGS MS64 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 27: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS64 PL [Rev]...CT -> 5 (High) vs You -> 5 (High)

 

@Mainebill you are up...

 

Ok here goes. Thoughts on this. Not a Morgan

 

I like it! I'm struggling a bit to interpret the photos (HA image?) but the reverse really stands out. I'm between a 3 and a 4.
I'll bump it to a 4.

 

I like the reverse more than the obverse. Overall I'd give it a 3. The obverse doesn't do anything for me.

 

4 all the way IMO.

 

4

Great color and coverage but appears to lack vibrancy. Heritage photos are notorious for muting luster so this might be a 5 in hand.

 

4