Pushing the limits of market acceptability?

We heard you, chill. I replied to someone else there, too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I was responding to your post that quoted me. Anybody else you want to answer, feel free to do so.

 

Tried to be helpful, "educational" but have increasingly been met with negativity. Hope you have a better weekend. Sorry to hear you have to sell your coins.

 

Thrilled to sell 25% of my collection. It is for a wedding present for my son, and his fiancée. Got tired of all those toners-- going to collect PL Morgans now.

 

I failed to mention before my admiration of what you're doing with this.

 

I don't see anything wrong with the coin in the OP. Looks natural to me.

That shade of blue, and that toning pattern, are consistent with other coins I've seen.

 

That shade of blue-- yes, definitely. That pattern, no way. It would bleed to the reverse. It is also a monolithic shade of Blue, and doesn't get progressively more intense. Sorry, but I disagree about it being NT.

 

I agree with @Morgandude11. The color itself looks fine. It even seems to have elevation chromatics. The uniformity and near lack of toning on the reverse is suspicious.

Here's one that really sets off alarm bells for me. It's currently for sale on eBay as a PR-68:



I'm 100% sure the photos are juiced (or at least taken from a very specific angle that brings out these colors), but this does not look at all natural to me even so.

 

The only time I got burned on EBay was for a toned 21 Morgan that, after it arrived, obviously had been photographed with trick lighting.

Never again.

 

I've seen plenty of coins with that same shade and pattern of nearly monochromatic blue. Problem is, about half of them were AT, the ones that straight graded were through ICG.....

 

And I disagree that it is NT-- give reasons for why you feel so. Trying to make this an educational thread.

 

Dude, you just quoted and argued your own quote lol see post #27, I didn't type anything there it was a quote/post fail on my part
I was trying to edit it, but, you replied b4 I could

 

Here's a near monochromatic blue Morgan with just a touch of red(see arrow)with the normal bleed-over that I would expect to see on the OP coin.... This looks like a Whitman album toner to my eyes....

This coin shows ABSOLUTELY NO pull away toning OR elevation chromatics but I would assume everyone here agrees it is natural

 

@heavycam.monstervam I don't like the color on that coin either.

Anybody have any comments on the Kennedy I posted?

 

I don't see anything glaringly wrong on the op coin. But I don't see anything that screams natural. I don't like the pure white reverse either I'm about 50/50 on it leaning toward being ok. The Kennedy I don't like at all But here's one I think today you'd have a real hard time getting in a slab

 

The pictures of the coin in the OP aren't great, which is muddying things. But, I think it is natural for these reasons:

1. That shade of blue is nearly impossible to replicate accurately. When you see blue on an AT coin, it is a very different shade.

2. While blue is the obvious dominant color, it is not nearly monochromatic. There are shades of blue, maroon, and reddish colors. Especially the progression from blue to red at the bottom of the obverse looks quite natural.

3. Elevation chromatics are on full display here. Look at the areas around the stars - the stars have a different color. Also look in the valleys (low points) of the tresses of her hair. The coloration in her hair is exactly what I would expect.

4. Just because one side is fully toned and one side isn't doesn't really raise a red flag for me. If the coin was up against the walls of a bag, and protected on the other side by other coins it could result in toning like this. I don't think this is album toning because that would tend to produce color on the reverse, like HCMVs coin in post #33.

5. While the reverse is essentially untoned, there is a subtle patina present, especially at the outer rims. This lends credence to its originality.

6. The lack of pull-away toning cannot be used to condemn a coin. The presence of pull-away toning can be used to justify a coin. I don't see it on this coin, but that isn't necessarily the end of the world.

7. The coin is slabbed by NGC, which lends credence to its originality (although, it certainly isn't proof of anything - it just helps its case). If the coin were as blatantly AT as you say, it probably wouldn't make it into the slab.

8. Someone had mentioned the possibility of the paper tag toning the coin in the holder: this did not happen to this coin. First, these holders are divided to prevent that. Second, I would expect the toning to occur in a top-down fashion (that is, the toning would be thickest closest to the insert).

All that to say - if I were in the market for a Morgan, I would have no problems buying the coin in the OP.

 

Please disregard the above post--it was accidental. Certainly, you raise possibilities. I feel the fact that the reverse shows virtually no toning is definitely suspicious. Toning generally doesn't have specific lines, and demarcations--very often, the pattern is more vague. Being in a slab doesn't guarantee authenticity; as I said, I know at least one person who has successfully doctored slabbed coins, and brags about it regularly.