1896-O Morgan

I'd like to get some input on this 1896-O Morgan from all you Morgan guys (of which I am not). Anything unusual or suspicious about it?

Pic files are quite large, so if you're on dial-up, you'll probably want to grab a cup of coffee while you wait.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm thinkin' maybe a light cleaning.........Not an expert by any means, and I await opinions from the Morgan community.

 

The surfaces definitely looked cleaned to me. The way this coin has been imaged also makes it hard to accurately access it...but I would say improperly cleaned.

 

Dunno if these will help, but these are the original images, just cropped without any PS adjustments;

 

If by suspicious you mean potentially counterfeit I'll leave it to the pros (but nothing jumps out as off to me).

My input is that its a definite pass unless it was dirt cheap. Its just not attractive cleaning aside. I'd like the eye appeal of an honest F12 over this

 

I don't see anything that makes me think it's a counterfeit...but it is definitely improperly cleaned.

 

Reverse design, MM, date & devices all look to be in order. There is a price jump in AU and above for this coin. Which i wouldnt pay even if it was straight graded in an AU50 holder.
I just dont like the eye appeal

 

It definitely looks cleaned, with some toning coming back around the edges. I am also not a fan of the scratches on the obverse.

 

This coin does not standout to me as counterfeit but does look well used without eye appeal to me. I think this coin would grade XF maybe AU 50 but would need to see it in hand to give it an AU.

 

Cleaned and beat up. I sold one in similar condition for $45 not too long ago, and that took months to sell.

 

Ok, so here's the deal on this Morgan.

I'm not a Morgan guy, but if they are going cheap (not on ebay, live auctions), I'll grab them. I paid <$50 for it, which is F15-VF20 money, and I felt it was a decent buy.

Last month (Oct), I did a 25 coin submission to ANACS on the Fall Insider special, and included this coin. (Cost to have graded and VAM identified was $17.60)

Last week I noticed my order status was "Consultant", which would mean John Roberts was looking into the VAM's (I had a couple of Morgans submitted).

I just got the results from the submission today, and this came back as "VAM-22 N9". N9 means 'not genuine'. It seems that the 1896-O VAM-22 is considered to be a contemporary counterfeit, along with the Mocro-O's of the same period. However, it seems the NGC considers it to be a genuine coin, as per this article.

I don't know how PCGS handles this VAM, as I haven't found (or looked very hard) for info on their site. But this has me a bit confused. We have one TPG, with a renowned Morgan expert saying it's counterfeit, and then we have one of the top 2 TPG's (NGC) saying it's a genuine coin.

In either case, it seems that the contemporary counterfeits can garner some pretty high premiums, especially if they are in straight slabs (which NGC seems to do with this VAM), from the VAM and counterfeit collectors.

So I posted it here to see if I was the only one that couldn't tell it was a counterfeit, or if I was duped. Normally, if I were to unknowingly buy a counterfeit, I'd be the first in line saying I wanted a refund, but I'm not sure in this case whether to a) submit to NGC, b) get my money back (good auction house, very fair, and it would be no trouble), or c) just keep it.

What would you advise?

 

Have you seen this link??

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/4934/

I would keep it on account of the cool factor!
Id like to hear @messydesk opinion of this vam !!!

 

I actually went thru all the vam listings before you gave the reveal. I found matching date position and MMs but couldnt narrow it down to one. I remember looking at the markers for v-22 and couldnt see them in the photo.
I assume it has this(?) >>

 

I don't have the coin in hand (shipping back to me tomorrow), so, like you, I only have the photos I posted to look for matches, and I don't see the circles, or any of the diagnostics, really. Maybe I'll shoot it again when I get it back, now that I know what I'm looking for.

I'll update with new pics once it gets back to me.

 

Oops i didnt realize you already posted that same article. It appears to me that the coin is genuine, but i would love to see it in hand !!
I noticed the denticles and bottom of the 6 looked sort of odd, when i gave it a good once over before the reveal. Which prompted me to try and match the vam #.

 

Very interesting article. I didn't know much about this particular vam. Thanks for posting it.

 

I haven't seen one of these in high grade. Usually, the contemporary counterfeits are seen in lower grades. Referring to the article, the existence of a coin with PL attributes -- I assume this doesn't mean a fully PL coin, as those are super rare for 96-O -- would put me on the side of genuine. None of the dies of the contemporary counterfeit Micro-O family coins had enough detail on the copy to start out PL. Of course, seeing is believing, so I'd have to closely examine a semi-PL coin. The rings in the field do show up on other genuine Morgans once in a great while. 81 VAM 17A and 85 VAM 9E both have these, but on the portrait. I assume they are water droplets that got in the way of the hubbing process.

As for what to do with the coin, that depends on if you want it, I guess. If you don't, you should be able to find someone to pay you at least what you paid, probably a touch more. I noticed ANACS didn't say cleaned, but probably no need if they first said not genuine.

 

I'm guessing they bodybagged it. Nothing other than the VAM and N9 (not genuine).

 

If it's going for a cheap price, like bullion pricing, it can't hurt picking it up.

Trust your gut! If you're uneasy about it or unsure, just pass. So many Morgans out there for sale where this one is not worth getting stuck on !

 

It'll be coming back in a flip then probably with a red sticker on the flip