The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

I originally had them posted side by side, but was reminded that we already did the “Moose.” If they were side by side, I think it would be clearer that “Almost There” is as close to the Moose as one can get. If it were a higher grade, I think it would be awfully close to the Moose, which I agree, is a unique coin.

The owner named it “Almost There” as it has a very similar toning pattern to our Moose friend, and is pretty close. Then again, the Moose sold for $93,550, when last sold, and Almost There sold for $3000.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'll say 6.0
A monster can be a 63 or 64 graded coin if the color is there (and it is in this case).

 

6.0 it’s a monster

 

5.9 I've always been a bit conservative when it comes to this. (Judging, grading, etc,).

 

Summary Chapter 1
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)
Rd. 28: 1835 10c PCGS AU58 [Rev]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 29: 1888 Morgan PCGS MS65+ [Obv]...CT -> 4 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 30: 1904-O Morgan NGC MS64 [Dual]...CT -> 3 (Mid) vs You -> 2 (Low-Mid)

Summary Chapter 2
Rd. 31: 1878 8tf Morgan PCGS MS66 [Obv]...CT -> 5.5 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 32: 1880-s Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 4.7 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.3 (High)
Rd. 33: 1881-S Morgan NGC MS 66* [Obv]...CT-> 5.6 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 34: 1868 4D Mdy PCGS MS 65 [Dual]...CT-> 3.1 (Mid) vs You-> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 35: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 64* [Obv]...CT-> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 36: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 64* [Obv]...CT-> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 37: 1881-S Morgan Raw [obv]...CT -> 1.8 (Low) vs You -> 1.7 (Low)
Rd. 38: 1877-CC Quarter PCGS AU 58 [Dual]...CT -> 3.4 (Mid) vs You -> 4.8 (Mid-High)
Rd. 39: 1919 Franc PCGS MS 66 [Dual]...CT -> 2.9 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 40: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 5.8 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)

 

@kSigSteve you are up

 

Let’s see what you think.

 

@kSigSteve are we doing both? If so, do you have reverse photos (or are they both blast white)?

 

I added the reverses. I had not included them because the lighting was a bit different but I included them at the request to get a feel for both sides of the coins.

 

I'll go
Ike - 2.9
Morgan - 3.0

....some like Ikes with that type of toning but I'm neutral on it (I prefer the more vivid ones)....the Morgan has a great splash of color, but the coverage is fairly small (extend that further into the coin and it would approach a more lofty score)

 

Ike: 2.5 Toning on proof coins tends to underwhelm in hand

Morgan: 2.9 Needs more coverage to break into the threes.

 

Ike: 2.8
Morgan: looks just like our example for a two but with better color and more bands so I'm at 2.5

 

I’m not seeing anything worth more than a 2 on the proof Ike.

...my scores...

Ike: 1.7
Morgan: 2.8

 

Ike 2.4
Morgan 2.7

 

Ike 2.4 That is a common toning for Ikes. Too limited, and not vivid enough. Typical of Ike proofs with peripheral toning.

Morgan toning is beautiful, but limited to a small area. Small crescent toning just is not my thing. What is there is very nice, but there isn’t much of it. 2.8

 

Ike 2, Morgan 3.0. A friend stored her mothers 1974-S proof brown box Ikes in her attic. All of them had similar toning.

 

Thanks for the opinions. I thought this one was interesting as the Ike came in a bit higher than I had it and the Morgan slightly lower. I agree the Ike is typical target toning and the Morgan while having a great crescent and band of color progression needs a bit more coverage to be a solid 3.

I had the Ike as a 2 and the Morgan as a 3.

 

@ddddd put me on the list for another Morgan.

 

Me as well with 2 Morgan’s that I can double down on. Then I may have to dig something out that isn’t a Morgan as I know they bore some of the group.

 

I'd welcome some more obscure denominations!