The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

I just wanted to add my two cents worth to the latest discussion since that's all the cents I have left. Just because a coin is slabbed doesn't mean the toning process is instantly stopped. Some elements that caused the reaction are still present on the surface of the coin, even after it has been removed from the source. I would expect some toning to continue but at a reduced rate. Copper coins are a good example as I see a number of slabbed "red" cents that are mostly brown now. Of course, silver tones differently from copper.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That OP coin would bring over $1000, without question. I sold far lesser toned Franklins for $300-400 in 2015. I think you are drastically underestimating the market for toned coins in general. Coins that I sold for $2,000 in 2015, and 2016 have resold for double and triple that amount. The 130k Franklin is an anomaly, but right now, the toner market is sizzling.

I just think your standards are far too tight. You grade these coins consistently 1-2 grades less than others do. I have a hard time getting a handle on what your standards are. Purchasers of toned coins are generally reacting emotionally to the coins—there is no factual literature to support the sale of toned coins. There is no red book or price guide for a toned coin. It is strictly what the market will bear, and the market is very hot.
Granted, toned Morgans drive a lot of the toned market, but other US toned coins are sky high. All reason goes out the window for a monster, and buyers are not as critical about the degree of monsterdom as we are being in this exercise. I guess we shall just agree to disagree, and that is fine. It isn’t personal—this is a hobby with a variety of opinions.

 

Some of us just see certain toners differently. I respect both your take and that of @brg5658 ...it's perfectly reasonable to be conservative when a good deal of money is on the line-although there are cases when all of us let emotions drive the bidding.

And I have also noticed bidding being more aggressive on quite a few toners in the last few years. Some still sneak by but quite a few toners have been going for very strong numbers.

 

Oh, for sure. The next coin I am going to post will get mixed reactions, and then I will disclose more information about it.

 

@Morgandude11 you will be up, then @kSigSteve , then @Lehigh96 ....anyone I'm missing?

And I'll have the summary in a few minutes, then you can post @Morgandude11

My score was 4.9-to me it was on the edge of making the high-end level.

 

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)
Rd. 41: 1974-S Ike Raw [Obv]...CT -> 2.5 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 2.0 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 42: 1885-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Obv]...CT -> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3.0 (Mid)
Rd. 43: 1958-D Franklin NGC MS64* [Dual]...CT -> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.9 (Mid-High)

 

Monster. A bit of blotchiness in areas, but I'm going 5.9

 

I'll give that 1886 a 6. The obverse color palette is wonderful.

 

6 from me ....and I look forward to the rest of the story

 

Is Paul Harvey still around?

 

I don’t see anything controversial about that 1886 Morgan that would merit mixed reactions. The Moose is still more vibrant, but I’m okay with a 6 on this one.

 

I presume you mean alive? He died in 2009.

 

I know. I just couldn't resist "the rest of the story".

 

WGN radio in Chicago briefly brought some highlights back earlier this year:

https://wgnradio.com/wgn-insider/pa...y-returns-monday-watch-the-new-tv-commercial/

 

You are exaggerating my scores discrepancy as compared to others.

There are a handful of coins with odd toning patterns that I may have rated lower, but in general my scores have been in line with others.

You seem to get your feathers ruffled and do the whole pouting thing a bit too much here. Take the scores for what they are, and move on. Huffing and puffing and name dropping won’t get you far with me. I call it like I see it; if you don’t like it, ignore my opinions. This is, afterall, just the internet. Everyone is a supposed expert...

 

I think what ticks me more is your attitude, not your scores. You would not have the nerve to say to my face the insulting garbage you are saying now. I had respect for you as a foreign coin collector, but with the name calling? Forget it. I have real life issues to deal with, in terms of family health problems, so your name calling is puerile.

 

I have not called you a name anywhere in a post. Again, you’re finding what you want to find, not the reality of what I have actually written.

 

“

“You seem to get your feathers ruffled and do the whole pouting thing a bit too much here. Take the scores for what they are, and move on. Huffing and puffing and name dropping won’t get you far with me. I call it like I see it; if you don’t like it, ignore my opinions.“

I would call that insulting, and straight out of Junior High. Enjoy the rest of the thread. I don’t feel like having schoolyard condescension contests. Ciao!

 

I would call it honest, not insulting. If you’re going to function on the internet, you better develop a thicker skin.

I still have not called you a name, as you said I had. I’m a blunt communicator in person and online. So, yes - I would say to your face exactly what I wrote here. I think you’re reading into it way too much.