Morgan GTG

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by wcoins, Mar 19, 2015.

  1. wcoins

    wcoins GEM-ber

  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. rlm's cents

    rlm's cents Numismatist

  4. coinman1234

    coinman1234 Not a Well-Known Member

  5. messydesk

    messydesk Well-Known Member

  6. cpm9ball

    cpm9ball CANNOT RE-MEMBER

  7. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I would say 40, possibly cleaned, and wonder why someone spent the money to slab it, (or am I just a jerk?)
     
  8. cpm9ball

    cpm9ball CANNOT RE-MEMBER

    I won't answer that, but I don't think they should have been submitted either.

    Chris;)
     
    coinman1234 likes this.
  9. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    VF35 if it grades. It looks cleaned, so why slab a common date like that?
     
  10. wcoins

    wcoins GEM-ber

    The slab is fake.
    The coin could be a fake also.
    There is no grade.
    See more here
    s-l1600 (3).jpg
     
    coinman1234 likes this.
  11. coinman1234

    coinman1234 Not a Well-Known Member

    Coin looks real, might be cleaned. Just some generic slab.
     
  12. wcoins

    wcoins GEM-ber

    What do you think about this one?
    sUntitled.jpg
     
    coinman1234 likes this.
  13. coinman1234

    coinman1234 Not a Well-Known Member

    The date and stars look funny, makes me worry, if real it looks cleaned.

    I hope someone else can help say if it is real or not. My motto is that is you are suspicious in any way and not 100% sure it's real STAY AWAY!
     
  14. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Actually, after posting the second one, BOTH dates look wrong. I wonder if they are fakes now.
     
  15. coinman1234

    coinman1234 Not a Well-Known Member

    I'm seeing that now. Very worried, I would stay away. Something looks "Off" on both
     
  16. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Well I am not an expert in these, just been around them for 35 years. I would like to see what real experts in these say.
     
  17. messydesk

    messydesk Well-Known Member

    The 1894 is an obvious fake, and now that I actually look at it, the 79-O is fake. Wrong style mint mark, for starters.
     
  18. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    The 1894 is definitely fake. Look at the 9 in the date. The 79o was a bad looking coin in the first place, probably fake or details.
     
  19. wcoins

    wcoins GEM-ber

    I think that had I posted the 1879 raw without the holder, most people that gave it a grade would have said it was a fake. Amazing what plastic can do. Makes you pay less attention. That label is awful, but I have seen labels that are almost impossible to tell from the legit NGC labels. Wide eyes open, plastic or not :wideyed:. Again, buy the coin, not the plastic.
     
    Argenteus Fossil likes this.
  20. miedbe7

    miedbe7 Wayward Collector

    the first coin's 7 looks improperly placed and the 2nd one is definitely "off"
     
  21. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    My first reaction was the top coin was a fake. Then I saw people posting grades, and I was really confused. Now it's all clear. Both coins are obvious fakes.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page