The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

How erudite! He can dish it out, but can’t take it. Not ignoring you, as I am having too much fun, reading contradictories, misstatements, and pompous proclamations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I’ll refrain from scoring coins posted by @Morgandude11 since he only likes to hear opinions that agree with his preconceived ideas of attractive toning. It is telling when I post reasoning for my scores but those posts go ignored...only hear replies with deriding and preachy comments about his untouchable “knowledge”.

The childish pouting and rants get old.

 

You persist with the insults. If you could behave like a man, and not a sniveling child, we could put this to rest. I am not the only person with whom @brg5658 personalizes his responses. However, reading your back posts, you like to pick your battles. I don’t intend to post any more coins, as this has become accusative, as opposed to a learning experience.

 

I got two for the next round. One is interesting one is simple.

 

Brandon, c’mon man, you were the one who called me petulant for giving your coin a 1.

 

Thanks, Paul. I don’t think I want to post any more coins here, as having personal arguments based on off-the-wall subjective opinions provoke disharmony by one or two people. @brg5658 even stated that he strongly disliked Morgan dollars, so why he insists on fighting and provoking those of us who have actively collect them baffles me.

 

Because you were. You only said it was a 1 because you were butt hurt over the unanimously low scores of your Jeff Nickel.

 

See, he personalizes everything. I am not imagining it.

 

No, I didn’t like the toning on that coin, have you seen me lowball any other coin in this thread?

And the low scores for my nickel weren’t unanimous. The two guys who actually collect Jefferson’s, @Morgandude11 & @kSigSteve, gave it very high scores.

ps, didn’t you score my nickel a 5?

 

Let’s go ahead and move forward with the intent of the thread. All insults, opinions, low and high scores put aside.

Let’s see some more coins!

 

Summary Chapter 1
Rd. 1: 1883-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Obv]...CT -> 3.6 (Mid) vs You -> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 2: 1880 Morgan PCGS MS62 [Obv]...CT -> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 3: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS65 [Rev]...CT -> 3 (Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 4: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS65 [Obv]...CT -> 4.6 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 5: 1880-S Morgan NGC MS66* [Obv]...CT -> 3.2 (Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 6: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS?? [Rev]...CT -> 3.5 (Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 7: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT-> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 8: 1939-D Lincoln PCGS MS65RB [Obv]...CT-> 4.1 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 9: 1972-D Ike PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT-> 2.3 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 2 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 10: 1892 GB Half Crown PCGS MS64 [Dual]...CT-> 4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 11: 1967 UK Half Crown PCGS MS65+ [Dual]...CT-> 3 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 12: 1963 Franklin NGC MS65+* FBL [Rev]...CT-> 4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 13: 1884-O Morgan PCGS MS63+ [Obv]...CT -> 5 (High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 14: 1899 GB 6 Pence PCGS MS65 [Dual]...CT-> 5 (High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 15: 1926 F.I.C. Piastre PCGS AU58 [Dual]...CT-> 3 (Mid) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 16: 1904 USP Peso NGC PF62 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 17: 1944 Jeff Nickel PCGS MS 66 [Obv]...CT-> 4.8 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 18: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS 66+ [Obv]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 19: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS 68+ [Obv]...CT-> 6 (Monster) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 20: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS 66+ [Obv]...CT-> 5.3 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 21: 1880-S Morgan NGC MS 66* [Obv]...CT-> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 22: 1941-D Jeff Nickel NGC MS 67* 5FS [Dual]...CT-> 4.9 (Mid-High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 23: 1961 Franklin 50c PCGS PR 65 [Dual]...CT-> 5.3 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 24: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 61* [Obv]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 25: 1941-D Jeff Nickel PCGS MS 66 FS [Dual]...CT-> 3.6 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 26: 1708 GB Shilling PCGS MS64 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 27: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS64 PL [Rev]...CT -> 5 (High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 28: 1835 10c PCGS AU58 [Rev]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 29: 1888 Morgan PCGS MS65+ [Obv]...CT -> 4 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 30: 1904-O Morgan NGC MS64 [Dual]...CT -> 3 (Mid) vs You -> 2 (Low-Mid)

Summary Chapter 2
Rd. 31: 1878 8tf Morgan PCGS MS66 [Obv]...CT -> 5.5 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 32: 1880-s Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 4.7 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.3 (High)
Rd. 33: 1881-S Morgan NGC MS 66* [Obv]...CT-> 5.6 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 34: 1868 4D Mdy PCGS MS 65 [Dual]...CT-> 3.1 (Mid) vs You-> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 35: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 64* [Obv]...CT-> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 36: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 64* [Obv]...CT-> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 37: 1881-S Morgan Raw [obv]...CT -> 1.8 (Low) vs You -> 1.7 (Low)
Rd. 38: 1877-CC Quarter PCGS AU 58 [Dual]...CT -> 3.4 (Mid) vs You -> 4.8 (Mid-High)
Rd. 39: 1919 Franc PCGS MS 66 [Dual]...CT -> 2.9 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 40: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 5.8 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 41: 1974-S Ike Raw [Obv]...CT -> 2.5 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 2.0 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 42: 1885-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Obv]...CT -> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3.0 (Mid)
Rd. 43: 1958-D Franklin NGC MS64* [Dual]...CT -> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.9 (Mid-High)
Rd. 44: 1886 Morgan PCGS MS66 [Obv]...CT -> 5.9 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 45: 1883-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Rev]...CT -> 3.5 (Mid) vs You -> 3.0 (Mid)
Rd. 46: 1958-D Franklin NGC MS67* [Dual]...CT -> 4.1 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.5 (High)
Rd. 47: 1888 Morgan Anacs MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
Rd. 48: 1961 10c PCGS MS66+ [Obv]...CT -> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.7 (Mid-High)
Rd. 49*: 1883 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.9 (High)
Rd. 50: 1884 Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 3.1 (Mid) vs You -> 4.0 (Mid-High)
______
*Rd. 49 is presumed to be a juiced picture, so take the final scores with a grain of salt

 

@LuxUnit you're up

...and let's all just agree to disagree on some of these as we have different opinions (some value a certain series more and will score it higher while others value it less and will score it lower).

 

Here here!!

 

I like the toning a little bit better on the 1878. I'll go with 4.4 on the 1882 and 4.9 on the 1878.

 

The 1882s is a 4.2, as there are so many superbly toned coins of that date. This one is a really nice color, but coverage is somewhat limited on the left side fields. Also, this is a glamour shot—it will look extremely dark in hand.

The 1878s is a fairly tough date to find with amazing toning. For some reason, there are few monsters from that date. This one is nice, but once again, it is a beauty contest shot. Without the heavy lighting, the right hand side fields won’t have that beautiful yellow glow in hand. So, 4.2

 

4.7
4.4

Though I might actually choose the second coin if buying.

 

I’m at 3.25 for both of these. Nothing too spectacular on either coin and they both have toning breaks and marks that impact the overall appearance

 

The TruView in the case of both coins makes them look better than they are.

 

I will say you're correct on the first one but the second one is fairly accurate.
The first one was more of a maroon color and only turned cherry red and blood orange in direct light. The tiny hints of purple were more noticeable in hand. I ended up selling it but I would never have sold it if it looked exactly like that image in hand all the time lol

The second one is slightly less gold than the color shows but there's a lot more baby blue in the bottom right field than what image shows otherwise it's fairly accurate.