Is this Morgan authentic?

My thoughts exactly, I am thinking, it is a fake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

May I ask if your Trade Dollars are all certified? If you collect such a heavily counterfeited series you should get them all graded in my opinon.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Collecting trade dollars before morgans is analogous to a baseball player using a donut on his bat in the batters box before he steps to the plate

 

The dentils look wrong on both sides and the rims look wrong on both too....

 

I dunno, doesn't seem to be time to panic yet. We have one single set of scans to go on, nothing more. I don't feel like there's enough info to be certain about anything.

 

It looks like an authentic Morgan to me. The images do look like they are juiced, however. There are several ebay sellers that seem to have an endless supply of raw DMPL Morgan Dollars and I'm very interested to see how this one turns out.

 

First thing I noticed, well second, I noticed it was a scan and not an actual picture first.

 

Hope to see images when you get the coin. Hope it turns out well.

 

This one doesn't really need much juicing in a scan, Dave. Reflectivity causes scanners to return a result so black that a coin worthy of PL could easily display the black and white look shown in these scans. It's a set of symptoms with subtle differences from those certain Ebayers. Past a certain level of reflectivity they all look the same, though, so no comparative judgement of the reflectivity can be made.

 

im really diggin that black background, is that the result of a dmpl morgan(where they not mirror like ass proofs like most other coins?) or just an illusion from the scan or picture taken?

 

I agree with this statement but my reasoning for calling these images juiced is the light blue background is most likely actually white. Some quick digging on ebay I found the OP coin and the seller is one of the endless supplies of raw DMPL Morgans. I've been tempted to test this water for well over a year but haven't as yet. Anyways, here's a 1880-S in PCGS plastic that didn't even get a PL designation and it looks as good or better than the OP coin.http://www.ebay.com/itm/1880-S-MORG...495003?hash=item5b1dc552db:g:GPoAAOSwnH1WbOlo

 

Yeah, scanners typically work at a higher-temperature white balance than they probably ought, so the final result has a bluish cast.

This look happens when the entire surface of the coin is evenly lit and reflecting vertically back into the sensor. Scanners only illuminate - and image - a slice of the coin at a time; their purpose in life is to bounce as much light vertically off the object scanned as possible. In photography, we generally prefer more point-source lighting (albeit usually a bit diffused), and that degree of verticality in lighting is difficult so you don't see this often. What works best for lifelike imaging works against this effect.

But not impossible, and if you reflect enough directly back into the sensor, you can achieve that black-and-white look. There are plenty of Morgans out there you'd call "reflective," yet they don't meet the strict definition for PL or DMPL. The coin in the OP, and the one you linked, are probably examples. Lit appropriately, that's what they look like. A circline fluorescent will do it (that's how I get the look with Proofs; I can't afford DMPL Morgans to prove the point), and I suspect an LED ring light would do it too.

Juiced? Heck, yes, but not in postprocessing. If your brain weren't so good at interpreting subtle visual cues and seeing "reflectivity" instead of "black and white," these coins would look like that to you in a brightly-lit room.

 

I too think the coin is genuine. I also think the image has been enhanced to make it appear more DPL. If the OP sends it in for grading, I'd be interested to see the result.

 

The rim doesn't look good, I see damage. If it's bad enough to not get a numerical grade, can't say from those pics.

 

I still think it looks puttied or something but genuine .