The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

I don't mind the dark blues. Still plenty short of monster. 3.1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd put that quarter in the 5 range, having been paying attention to clad toners for a little bit. I'd probably go more like 5.5 than 5.8, though. If I can get a good enough shot of it, I have a 1965 quarter that would probably crack at least a 6.

I respect a man who admits when he messed up.

As for the 2 coins we're looking at now, I'm not sure I even want to guess on the Morgan. It did literally make me say "whoa!" when I saw it, and, given the chance and the right price, I would probably be willing to buy it. But, I'm having a hard time making sense of the toning, given that it's just a few shades of blue that are very, very close to each other, with no real trace of elevation chromatics, or anything that makes me think this coin didn't get worked on. There's no trace of pull away, and very, very little in the way of elevation chromatics.

The reverse is easy, of course, and I'd give that side a solid "meh."

Overall, I just don't understand this Morgan. I would feel better if I did, so, maybe if someone can explain to me how a Morgan dollar would get this way legitimately, I'd appreciate it. I've seen other kinds of coins tone mono blue before, but not with that abrupt, straight line cutoff this has going on.

The dime, though... I've been observing toned Roosies that come through eBay and other venues, and that obverse is a true monster. 6.0 for sure.

I have a dime of my own to post after these two are done with.

 

Canada, 1944, 25 cents, I give it a 5.

 

@spirityoda, don't we already have 2 coins pending? I think we should wait on this a little bit. Also, isn't the submitter supposed to withhold their opinion until after all the guesses are in?

@ddddd: What's the submission queue look like officially? I'm in no hurry to post, but I do want to share my dime with y'all eventually.

BTW, that's a great looking coin I'd be proud to own. I don't really know how it rates on the scale of caribou quarters, but I'd definitely pay a premium for that one.

That reminds me, maybe I should eventually post my one and only toned Canadian coin, a raw silver 5 cents of George V.

 

The thread does get a bit out of order at times (I know that some people are excited to post and might not read the rules).

We can move on to the Canadian quarter and the two coins prior (Dime and Morgan) can also remain in play. I'll update the summary info afterwards.

So the order is now as follows:
1) Canadian Quarter from above
2) @Paul M.

And great to see you back @Paul M. !

 

I'll give the quarter a 3.8 ....attractive example!

 

Good to be back.

 

Ok, since we're doing the 1944 Canadian quarter, I'll jump in.

I don't know how it ranks specifically in terms of silver Canadian quarters, but, if that were a Washington quarter of the same vintage, it would be a solid 4. Believe it or not, within the past year or so, I spent significant time looking for a colorful Washington quarter for my type set. I insisted on having at least some color on both sides, which meant I spent a few months looking, and I missed out on 1 or 2 that would have fit the bill.

Bottom line: I'm giving this quarter a 4.5. It has a nice, sunset-style color scheme, no blotchiness, and overall very nice eye appeal.

 

Canadian quarter is quite nice. I like the double-sided album toning. 4.25 from me.

 

4.4 on the Canadian quarter.

 

I find the Canadian Quarter attractive. I'd call it a 4.0

 

@Paul M. did you end up finding your quarter?
I haven't been a big quarter guy but it's funny (given we are on the topic of quarters in this thread) that the past few months I've bought and sold several (including a Canadian).

Also this is a final bump before we call all of the coins currently in play and move on to @Paul M. (will tag you again when it's time).

 

Yeah, I did! In fact, I found two of them, but the first one slipped through my fingers because I waited too long. I thought I needed to take more time to study what was out there, when it turned out I was looking at exactly what I wanted. But, I found the one I have now just a few weeks later, and for a fraction of the price. The one I missed out on was an attributed variety and higher grade, neither of which mattered very much to me. The only reason I'm the least bit sad about it is it has great eye appeal. But, then, so does the one I ultimately ended up with.

 

Nice! Sounds like the second was the better value considering the eye appeal is still there, the price was lower, and you only need the one example for your type set.

 

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 (scale is loosely followed/more opinion)
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. 53: 1880-S Morgan NGC MS 64 [Obv]...CT-> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You-> 3.8 (Mid)
Rd. 54^: 1901-O Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 4.7 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.0 (High)
Rd. 55^: 1899-O Morgan NGC MS65* [Obv]...CT -> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 56: 1885-O Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 5.5 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
Rd. 57: 1883 Morgan PCGS MS65 [Obv]...CT -> 5.7 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 58: 1882-O Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 4.4 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.0 (High)
Rd. 59*: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 3.3 (Mid) vs You -> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 60: 2001 France Last Franc PCGS SP69 [Obv]...CT -> 3.7 (Mid) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 61: 1884-O Morgan PCGS MS65 [Obv]...CT -> 5.3 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
Rd. 62: 1944-D Jeff Nickel NGC MS 67 T [Dual]...CT-> 5 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 63: 1968-S Jeff Nickel PCGS PR 66 [Dual]...CT-> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4.8 (Mid-High)
Rd. 64: 1964 Jeff Nickel Anacs PF 67 [Dual]...CT-> 4.1 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 65: 1959 Lincoln Cent Raw UNC [Dual]...CT-> 5 (High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 66: 1963 Jeff Nickel Anacs PF 67 [Dual]...CT-> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5.5 (High)
Rd. 67: 1950-D Jeff Nickel NGC MS 67 [Dual]...CT-> 3.9 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 68: 1985-O Morgan Raw UNC [Dual]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 2 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 69: 1897 Indian Cent NGC PF 66* RB Cam [Dual]...CT-> 5.2 (High) vs You-> 4.9 (Mid-High)

Summary Chapter 3 (added that monsters go from 6.0-6.9)
Rd. 70: 1887 Morgan NGC MS65* [Obv]...CT -> 6.3 (Monster) vs You -> 6.5 (Monster)
Rd. 71: 1914 German Mark PCGS MS68 [Dual]...CT -> 3.3 (Mid) vs You -> 3.0 (Mid)
Rd. 72: 1958 Lincoln Proof Raw UNC [Dual]...CT-> 2.9 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 73: 1978 Ike ICG MS 64 [Dual]...CT-> 2.4 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 74: 1976-D Ike ICG MS 64 [Dual]...CT-> 3.0 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 75: 1963 Lincoln Proof Raw UNC [Dual]...CT-> 2.9 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 76: 1881-s Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 5.7 (High) vs You -> 5.8 (High)
Rd. 77: 1936 Buffalo Nickel NGC MS67 [Obv]...CT -> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 78: 1964 Jefferson Nickel PCGS PR66 [Dual]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.6 (High)
Rd. 79: 1740-60 Germany Klippe NGCS MS62 [Dual]...CT -> 3.4 (Mid) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 80: 1957 Washington Quarter NGC MS 67 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 81: 1882-S Morgan NGC MS65* [Obv]...CT -> 5.2 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
Rd. 82: 1955 Lincoln Cent Anacs MS64RB [Dual]...CT-> 4.7(Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 83: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS66 [Obv]...CT -> 5.8 (High) vs You -> 6.2 (Monster)
Rd. 84: 1938-D Buffalo Nickel [Dual]...CT -> 3.7 (Mid) vs You -> 5.7 (High)
Rd. 85: Norfolk NGC MS68 [Dual]...CT -> 4.7 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.7 (High)
Rd. 86: 1879-S Morgan PCGS MS65 [Dual]...CT -> 5.5 (High) vs You -> 6.1 (Monster)
Rd. 87: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS66 [Dual]...CT -> 6.5 (Monster) vs You -> 6.6 (Monster)
Rd. 88: 1976-S Washington Quarter [Obv]...CT -> 5.2 (High) vs You -> 5.3 (High)
Rd. 89: 1939-D Oregon PCGS MS68 [Dual]...CT -> 6.2 (Monster) vs You -> 6.3 (Monster)
Rd. 90: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS64 PL [Rev]...CT -> 5.9 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 91: 1962 Lincoln Cent PCGS PF66BN [Dual]...CT-> 5.1 (High) vs You-> 5.7 (High)
Rd. 92: 1885-O Morgan NGC MS64* [Obv]...CT -> 5.9 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 93: 1965 Washington Quarter Raw Unc [Dual]...CT-> 4.4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4.7 (Mid-High)
Rd. 94: 1970-S Washington Quarter Proof [Dual]...CT-> 3.5 (Mid) vs You-> 4.4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 95: 1923-S Peace NGC MS63* [Dual]...CT -> 6.0 (Monster) vs You -> 6.6 (Monster)
Rd. 96: 1915-S Pan Pac Half PCGS MS66 [Dual]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.5 (High)
Rd. 97: 1954 Washington Quarter NGC MS 66 [Obv]...CT -> 1.8 (Low) vs You -> 1.5 (Low)
Rd. 98: 1957-D Washington Quarter NGC MS 66 [Rev]...CT -> 2.0 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 1.5 (Low)
Rd. 99: 1870 H10c Raw [Dual]...CT-> 3.6 (Mid) vs You-> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 100: 1946-D Washington Quarter UNC Raw [Dual]...CT -> 4.0 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.0 (Mid-High)
Rd. 101: 1881-O Morgan PCGS MS65+ [Obv]...CT -> 6.3 (Monster) vs You -> 6.5 (Monster)
Rd. 102: 1963 Canada 25c PCGS PL 64 [Dual]...CT -> 3.4 (Mid) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 103: 1982 Norway 100 Kroner UNC Raw [Dual]...CT -> 3.8 (Mid) vs You -> 4.0 (Mid-High)
Rd. 104: 1971-S Nickel PCGS PR 68 [Dual]...CT -> 5.2 (High) vs You -> 5.3 (High)
Rd. 105: 1968-S Kennedy PCGS PR 68 [Dual]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 106: 1963 Dime NGC MS 62 [Dual]...CT -> 5.2 (High) vs You -> 5.1 (High)
Rd. 107: 1883-O Morgan PCGS MS 63 [Obv]...CT -> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You -> x.x (TBD)
Rd. 108: 1944 Canada 25c Raw Unc [Dual]...CT -> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.0 (High)
______
*Rd. 49 is presumed to be a juiced picture, so take the final scores with a grain of salt
^Rds. 54 & 55 are potentially pixelated pictures, which likely skewed the results
*Rd. 59 is presumed to be a juiced picture, so take the final scores with a grain of salt

 

@ryang74 what was your score for the Morgan you posted? (I'll add it to the summary next time I post it)

@Paul M. you are up....

 

A solid 4 for me

 

I don't like to think of it so much in terms of "better value," but I do love the coin I ended up with. If anything, I would like to own both this one and the one I mentioned before.

Anyway, here's my entry, a 1962-D dime graded MS66+ by PCGS:



The TrueView is a good representation of how the coin looks in hand, so this should be informative. I'm not going to hype this coin up any, because I really do want to see what score CT gives it, but, needless to say, it's a favorite of mine.

 

I’m at a solid 5 on that Rosie. Great colors throughout the coin. Rev definitely has the monopoly on colors, obv is nice but the majority of it has that brownish color that takes away from the coin. Regardless I would love to have in my collection. Thanks for sharing.

 

That is a beautiful Roosevelt dime. Beautiful toning on both sides of the coin. Nice rainbows on the obverse, along with Red, Crimson, and Rainbow mixed progressively. The reverse is spectacular. This coin is exceptional for its type. I won’t nitpick one bit. It is a 5.6