Do you think this is a real 1890 CC Morgan Dollar. If so, what grade is it.

Ain't science wonderful !!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A standard can of soda contains 12 fluid ounces of soda; that is a measurement of volume, not weight. A can of soda isn't good reference for calibration.

 

Absolutely true! In order to determine weight, one would have to determine volume using integration, and then subtract off the weight of the fluid from the weight of the can, and find net weight. I am sure there would be considerable variation from soda can to soda can.

 

People need to stop taking difference of opinions so personally lol... an attack on your opinion is not an attack on you. Personally I'm looking forward to finding out what the TPG says, one way or the other. Sure to be educational either way.

As for the soda can, specific gravity of soda is pretty close to that of water (as it's mostly water anyway) and allowing for the weight of the can itself, if anything it should weigh slightly more than 12 ounces, so your scale may be under-reporting the weight a tad. Best to calibrate it with something of a known weight though.

 

He has a history of stalking my posts--that is why I decided not to just let it go. Otherwise, I agree completely.

 

Or, you could just use this cool link I provided 5 posts ago...... I haven't had the need to Integrate any thing since senior Calc in 1976


http://vigapi.tynt.com/api/click?fo...itycoke.html&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13611631028783

 

HAHHAHAHA. Love it. I have not had to use integral calc in many, many years, but remember doing the volume of a cylinder with triple integrals.

 

Haven't done integrals in a while but I was under the impression that the volume of a regular cylinder is just the area of its circular cross-section (pi times the square of the radius) times its height. Shouldn't be that complex lol...

 

Oh, but the profs made one derive the method using integral calc. Your way would give a general impression of the volume, but to be complete, you'd have to do the integral(integral)(integral) of the cylinder to determine the EXACT volume. At least, that is what the calc 3 profs told us to keep us going.

 

Oh, get real, I do not stalk your posts. You posted in a THREAD THAT I STARTED and told me coins that are nice, original MS examples are AU or cleaned... I vigorously disagreed with you, defending my decision to buy those coins. You blasted them and said no dealer stays in business long selling 63-64 Morgans for $75 a pair... Well, my dealer has been around for 15 years and is still going strong... selling raw, MS63-64 Morgans to me, a very loyal customer, for $75 a pair.

In this thread, I disagreed with you about the coin showing luster, you said it was flash... flash would have been so bright, the coin would be obscured. What you have in the OP's photo is a photo taken with a harsher, white light that is high overhead, perhaps on a ceiling, and the photo was angled so the coin would catch the light and illuminate the details of the coin.

I'm done with this... stalking your posts, don't flatter yourself.

Here's a link to that thread, since your widely errant memory needs some correcting;

http://www.cointalk.com/t221497/

 

Solid 64+ in my opinion. I like it as a 65. If cleaned up by a professional TPG might go 66
Again nice coin. One last thing, I am always on the fence when I see coins like this, some look cleaned way back or just might be sitting in a dansco or a box and got the ring tone. I like it though

 

No chance at MS. If it were real, it would probably be an XF or Au coin details, and cleaned. I still go with Chinese counterfeit.

 

If the main factor was the volume, he might be correct, but the main factor is the weight , or the specific gravity if one is concerned with the metallic content. The weight of the Morgan was set by law at 26.73 grams +/- 0.097 grams ~ so the $ could weigh as little as 26.663 grams to as much as 26.827 grams. With the mechanical actions to produce the planchet and the collar to limit diameter in striking/reeding, the height would probably be the larger variable as the dies might be set at a slightly differing height for each set of dies. The diameter was set at 38.5 mm, but no tolerance is given by the mint. If specific gravity is done by comparing the weight in air with weight while submerged in the required water, one could verify if the metal was approximately 90% silver. By using such mathematical determination of a dimension, one must determine if such are repeated with no variance. I don't know how the calculus professor would assign tolerances for the measurement as the mint assigned them for the content ( weight and silver/copper percentages and set the diameter at 38.5 mm. But good mind problem.

​

 

Update. I received a nice AU 50 grade as I expected. But didn't expect a Cleaned message.

Oh well I didn't pay much. I think I made a few bucks. Maybe Ebay or my safe. At least it's deemed real. Thanks for all of your comments. It's cool to get opinions. You never know these days. G

 

Thanks for updating the thread Sliderguy!

 

I am a bit late to this thread, but a can of Coke is filled by weight even though it is labeled as a volume. And, FWIW, due to some weird government regulations, is only required to hold about 11.8 (or close, I don't remember the exact amount) ounces on average with a certain (do not remember) minimum allowed. And they target for just what is required. Filling it more would cut into their profits.

 

Can you post a photo of the slab?

 

If I remember it's in transit.

 

Agree 100% FAKE sorry...

 

Sorry, but it got certified.