Artificial or Natural Toning on this Morgan?

Let me say up front that I'm still new to the hobby and trying to digest as much information as possible from this forum. This is my favorite coin purchase and I was very pleased with it until I just saw PCGS gave it a Genuine 91 (Questionable Color). I bought it from a coin shop while on a work trip a couple months ago. The shop had graded it MS-65.

What do you all think - natural or artificial? It seems very similar to other graded rim toned Morgans I've seen online. Is it worth resubmitting to NGC or even PCGS again, or what would you do if you were in my situation? Would you take it back to the coin store to see what they think of the PCGS determination, resubmit, chalk it up as a not-so-inexpensive learning experience, other ideas?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's NT, nice coin. As for getting it graded, from the pics I'm leaning more towards 64 then 65, depending on how strong the luster is, and the chatter on Liberty's cheek. At 64 it's really not worth grading, even at 65 I'm not sure it's really worth the grading fees (depending on what you paid for it).

Personally I'd probably just keep it raw, it's a nice one.

 

PCGS is really cracking down on toning these days, since the art of artificial toning has become so advanced. Even the slightest hint of anything questionable, and they'll give it a genny. It kind of sucks. I personally think it is NT, but we should wait for Lehigh or one of the pros to speak up.

 

Based on those photos, I would have to agree that the coin looks naturally toned. Usually doctored coins have more than monochromatic album toning which drives no premium. Remember the two reasons to artificially tone a coin are to hide surface problems and increase eye appeal in order to charge a premium. Simple russet/violet peripheral toning can't possibly achieve either of those two goals. Having said that, it very well could be a failed attempt by a coin doctor who gave up and didn't dip the coin.

I agree that PCGS has tightened it's standards significantly since introducing genuine grading. In the days of body bagging, they could simply grade those they considered market acceptable and body bag the rest without any harm to their reputation. Now that every coin, NT, QT, and AT will end up in a PCGS slab, they need to be very certain that the toning is NT in order to maintain consumer confidence. The result is a stricter standard for toning.

It bears mentioning that this analysis is based on small and not very revealing photos. It is entirely possible that in hand, the reason for the AT determination may be much more evident. As far as what to do, I would chalk it up as a lesson and choose already graded examples when purchasing toned coins in the future. Resubmitting it is throwing good money after bad IMO.

 

Before I read the comments I thought why would you even ask. That coin meets my criteria of NT, I guess I have a lot to learn. I can't imagine why they deem it questionable.

 

I agree...looks NT to me. Looks like a great coin too...only minor marks in the usual areas.

 

I guess I am the exception, I agree with PCGS. Please note I am not saying it is AT, nor that it is not NT, just that it is questionable.

My reasons are that although it is predominantly "russet" in color ( just a little blue in the denticles), the tone varies from just preceptible to rather deep with no intervening different color except on the reverse where it domes nearly to dark gray in one spot. It has the appearance of the tone forming at one time rather than over a period of time where the toning conditions would vary and most likely produce several colors of the toning spectrum. On small coins monochromatic toning occurs more often due to the smaller size, but Morgans would be suspect. IMO.

Limitations are of course looking at photos rather than the coin itself.

Jim

 

Thank you all for your valuable input. I, of course, do not have a fraction of the expertise the PCGS graders have, but I see this is a hot issue over the past year or so. I only know it looked good in the store compared to many of the few dozen or so other Morgans they had and the store seems reputable. My assumption as to why the toning is so symmetrical is that it spent some time in an album or roll, which affected the coin evenly from the rim inwards. If its natural, I can't see how else it would have happened.

I found a post on another forum from a collector who is putting together a rim toned set of Morgans and some of them are similar to mine. I know this doesn't prove anything regarding mine, but there are others out there like mine. I will take some more pictures when it gets back here from PCGS and post them once my coin photography skills are better.

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=737909

I'll definitely go for already certified coins in the future.

Thanks again

 

tonign coins?
I understand if its done naturally but the only way I know that they artifically tone coins is by baking them in the oven or blow torching them. I wasnt aware they were trying to defraud people by selling artificially toned coins for a premium.
How could they artifically tone coins but make them look realistic?
The baked and torched coins obviously show that its not natural.

 

Coin looks natural to my eye.

 

RNCJ,

The coins in that thread were not so dominantly one color as yours. Again, yours may be completely NT, and as you see, most responders think so also. If instead of russet color it had been a gold color, in exactly the same pattern and density, I would have too, but to get a thickness needed for your color would have been difficult in nature IMO.

Jim

 

Jim,

I don't find anything unusual about the pattern or color scheme of this Morgan Dollar. I just don't want to make a definitive statement based on those photos. However, if his coin looks anything like this, I would be much more inclined to proclaim it NT.

 

LeHigh,
I certainly don't have any problem with the one you show either. If my screen colors are correct, I see gold, blue, russet, and possibly other colors on the obverse in a feasible progression. Similar on the reverse ( nice coin by the way). I agree with you on the OP photos, as I would not want to say it was NT based on that either, that is why I went with suspicious rather than AT or NT.

Jim

 

It looks completely NT to me and MS65 to boot. A very nice coin. I don't see anything that I would deem questionable, but who knows what goes on in the minds of any of the graders at any of the major services.

 

NT :thumb:

 

It looks funny to me , the color of the toning , the fact that it's the same on both sides , I'm no toning expert , looks like someone experimenting and trying to get a nice color . JMO
rzage

 

New Pictures

I got the coin back a couple days ago from PCGS and I've been trying to take pictures that better reflect the color of the coin. These two, while still reflecting light, are more accurate on my monitor. The original pictures were from placing the coin on my scanner glass, so after seeing the coin in person again, I can see they were not exactly correct. The actual toning has a gold-ish hue, where the original photos were more reddish.

I'm traveling back to the area where I bought it and plan to show it to the coin shop I purchased it from. How do you bring this sort of thing up with a dealer? I just thought I'd let them know that PCGS thought the coin had questionable color in case they have others like it or if they have any other issues with their source? I don't want to offend them.

 

Did the seller have you pay for a MS65 price??if so I ask for some money back!

 

I believe so; it was $150 in October.