Morgan 1889 CC - Need estimates on Grade and Value

This is an ungraded 1889 Carson City. It has beautiful red toning which the photo captures somewhat faithfully. The face has no deep scratches, and the rim suffers very little damage. The overall coin is worn and looks to me like it has never been cleaned. The photos are quite accurate and should give you a pretty good idea of how it looks. On the face side the ledt side of the coin seems less toned than the right, and I dont know if this means anything. on the reverse of the coin there are two little scratches on the lower breast of the bird. I also notice that the toning has a very distinct edge that runs across both wings. notice this below the "N" in "In God We Trust", where it almost appears that the toning has been worn off. Take a look. Again I dont know if this is significant. I also noticed in the photos that the right "C" in "CC" appears a little larger than the left one. Any ideas?

That is all I notice on the coin, the rest is for you to decide from the pictures.

I'm looking for an estimated grade and value for this coin based on individual collectors opinions.

Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice granite counter tops in the back lol!

 

I see what you mean by the mintmark, it almost looks like the mm is OC

 

I'm no expert, but that coin doesn't look genuine. The design looks mushy like it is cast. The denticles are all uneven, and the E in ONE on the reverse looks tooled. Wait for some more experienced opinions, but the whole coin looks off. Actually all Letters and all the stars on the obverse look odd as well

 

bigjpst,

i do see what you are saying. The coin is definitely high in silver content and weighs out correctly, but the entire cast is raised more than most of my morgans. Everything seems raised higher giving it alot more depth than a 1921 AU. I agree that it seems a little "mushy", and yet I dont know what to make of it. It definitely has a good bit of age on it. I am attaching 2 more pictures here for comparison. One is a 1921 AU and the other is an 1898-S. The 1898-S is definitely genuine and has the closest visual similarities to the Carson City that I could find on the quick. Notice that it also appears a bit mushy and more raised. Notice particularly the "In God We Trust" on both coins for a reference. They look much more mushy than on the 1921. Also notice the 2 "flowers" (maybe its cotton) on Lady libertys head to the right of the "LIBERTY" crown and see that they both look almost the same on the two older coins but entirely different from the 1921. The Carson City in the middle coin in both comparisons. I'm inclined to think its genuine, but am certainly no expert. Any other opinions?

 

I can tell you that the final conclusion will probably be that you would have to get it certified unless you can sell it out of hand to someone who can actually look at it. Photos can be so difficult to tell. To me there are aspects, such as the surface, the toning color and pattern, and the devices that would make me pass on it. If it would be certified, the value is quite significant. Your best bet would be to pack it up and send to PCGS or NGC. IMO.

Jim

 

Jim,
It will be sent to PCGS. I get all of my coins certified. But I am trying to learn how to evaluate them myself and to learn the art. Even if I send it off and get it certified it might just come back as Genuine without a grade. I realize that it is impossible to accurately grade based on photos and these estimates and opinions wont be used to actually sell the coin. What is it about the toning color that makes it odd to you? The photo color is quite accurate to the actual coin. Also, what do you mean by devices?

 

The reverse design of the 1921 is different than the 1893. Desertgem is right, sending it in for certification may be your best option. Wait for more responses if you like, but that coin is definately one I would avoid raw.
Here are some Morgan sites that may be helpful
http://www.lotn.org/~calkinsc/coins/doc/morganreverses.html
http://www.vamworld.com/

 

The toning seems to be other than natural to me. Not saying for sure it isn't, just what it appears to me. Splotchy in places as if a liquid, natural or not, was present at a time on the coin. Suspicious nature would be to cover up problems with the surfaces. the color bothers me also, and it is a subjective observation,and one hard for me to qualify. By devices I mean other than the fields such as the bust and lettering. The lines of the bust seem much more rounded than would be expected for the amount of wear, etc. I am glad you will be sending it in, we will all be interested in what they say.

If I haven't yet, Welcome to the Forum!

jim

 

Thanks for your observations. I thought the coin looked a little different in some way, and the toning color is not like any other in my collection. It will probablly head to NGC with my next shipment and Ill be sure to share with the forum the results of those findings. Im am now very curious as to what they will be. If it is a fake then its one that was done with a 90% silver composite. I cant read other forms of metal in it, but it definitely contains a majority of silver. Either way i think its a neat coin. I too thought that the "toning" actually looked like it was of a liquid residue. It has that same kind of appearance as those people that smear themselves with liquid sun-tanner. Uneven and artificial. Could be it was weathered some how or left with some sort of liquid on it. We'll see, and I will certainly share the professional results here. I'd still like to hear what people think on the coin.

Any other ideas on the strange "CC". Has anyone ever seen that before?

 

The mintmark is fake
it does not follow die any of the die positions for the 1889 CC
they created other damage to distract attention from the CC.
An amateur coin doctor.
Not bad for a try but the coin is all wrong sell it if you can recoup some of that money.

 

You notice also that the second C is larger than the first and a completely different style

 

I agree with cerdsalicious and actually think chip hit it on the head the first time. Looks like an OC not a CC. At best an altered and added mint mark if not just a cast fake, don't waste money getting it certified.

 

Thanks Cerds and JJK78. Thats why I joined this community. Already you've saved me money within 24 hours. I was going to show it to my grading friend, but I have a limited time to get it returned. I've already begun the process and will be refunded. The seller has too much at risk in reputation to let news of this get out. I deeply appreciate everyone here working on helping to solve the case. I have now had a chance to see my first real counterfeit and didnt get burned in the process thanks to you guys!
Thanks also to Jim, Chip and Big J who helped to point out things that seemed wrong and to help me learn to identify the problems and to get attention drawn to the faulty details. I've learned through this coin.

 

tell me though, why an "OC"? Saying its an Orleans that was tooled and then a C added? Or that someone used an O and a C die? Why not just use two C's?

 

Does anyone think that the date on the 1889 looks suspicious as well??? Look at it compared to the 1898. The spacing is waaay funky. Maybe the date was changed from an 1883?

 

Here it is compared with an authentic 1889 CC. Date looks strange compared to the 1898, but look at it next to another 1889. What do you think? Ive also included an 1883. To me the spacing between both authentic coins seem different between years. I notice on both of the "9"s on the 1889s that they appear slightly higher than the 188. They seem similar to me in that respect.

 

It seems all of the #s in date seem bizarre. I personally think this was cast and all the devices and legend were tooled to clean up poor casting. Look at the P R and B in Pluribus the E in One on the Reverse.

 

Your probablly right. Ive got a good friend whos a top-of-the-line pro when it comes to morgans. This coin has me so curious now that I cant just send it back until I know what it really is. Im going to take it down to him tomorrow and let him look at it. He will be able to tell me 100% whether the coin is real or not. I'll reveal the results of his findings tomorrow. He is especially good with Chinese counterfiets and specializes in Carson Cities.
he seen the pictures and agrees that it looks strange but wants to examine the coin personally.

 

I think it looks strange next to the 1889 also. The spacing still looks funky to me at least.