First one I rated a 3.2. I would be out at 3.0 exact but it had really nice luster which made the color really pop! The second one is a stronger look but doesn't have the coverage needed to be higher so I had it at a 3.7.
No, you are not wrong. If monster standard is only the Moose, then it is virtually impossible for coins to match that coin. So, if that is the absolute standard, then ratings in the 3-4 range for most toned coins is accurate. There is considerable accuracy in the mid ground. Personally, I think the monster category should be 6 and 7, for monster, and ultra monster, but we have already completed evaluation of many coins. My opinion, as someone who has collected specifically toned Morgans from the 1990s to 2016 is that we are rating a bit too low, due to an impossible standard, but as was said—each to their own.
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. 51: 1882-S Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 3.2 (Mid) Rd. 52: 1878-S Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 3.7 (Mid) ______ *Rd. 49 is presumed to be a juiced picture, so take the final scores with a grain of salt
4.8. Beautiful textile toning. Not too dark, not too light. Subtle, yet intense. I love pastel textile toning. The S Mint early years give us some really nice coins, and this is one.
I like that one! I'd say 4.5 The only tiniest of distractions is that black spot in front of her lips. But, the color is great, and I love the pull-away toning at the date and lower stars.
We agree completely. Were it not for the black spot, I would have gone 5.0. It is a really beautiful coin—great color transitions.