1896 Proof Morgan?

The 1896 looks like it'll grade MS63. The strike is average, and I really don't see wear that would indicate an AU grade. The 1921 I think I remember commenting on some time ago. It is still not a Chapman proof.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Beg to differ. There is wear in the circled areas. There is significant rub there, enough to indicate circulation wear. It looks like an AU details coin, cleaned.

 

Odd how seem people seek out expert opinion and when they don't hear what they want get combative. Actually more than odd, downright weird.

 

This image is actually somewhat usable and has the look of a coin that should grade MS. Maybe 62 and not 63, though, now that I'm using a better monitor.

 

Based on that photo, I am even more convinced it is AU. The hair has wear too, as well as the cap. Moreover, it has numerous luster breaks. No question that it is a cleaned coin. Lots of abrasion marks that are on the cheek, fields, hair, cap. Those are not bagmarks—having seen thousands of Morgans. I stand by AU details.

 

You're a little high. It's value still lets it qualify for regular service tier so $10 handling $38 grading and return shipping is only about $28 so $76 total.

 

If it were a genuine Chapman proof, I would hand deliver it. Do we really think that coin needs specialized service to a TPG? To prove the point, ordinary normal services would be fine.

 

Plus given the reliability of the mail, OP had best hand-carry it.

 

Sorry I thought you were talking about his 1896 "proof".

 

Do we? No. Does the OP? So it would seem.

 

What are the odds? To my knowledge, all of the Chapman and Zerbe proofs are well accounted for. That 1921 coin is not even remotely Prooflike, nor is the other one (the 1896). The TPG can make a final determination, but does anybody give the 1921 coin even a .01% chance of being a Chapman? Or for that matter, any kind of Morgan proof? The same goes for the 1896. What are the odds?

 

Many words in this thread, but few coins.
Here is a well-made business strike for 1896. There is still a long way to go before this would be mistaken for a proof. You are free to compare your coin to this one.

First, an animation to show typical luster.


Then, highly detailed photos so you have something to compare your coin against. By the way, I think this is a VAM 6B, but that has not been confirmed by anyone, it is only my opinion. Now this may seem obvious, but for it to be a VAM 6B, that means it was struck with the same dies as the other coins with the same markers. Those coins are not proofs, so it follows that this cannot be a proof either.




Just a note, if the OP finds himself banned, it's because trolling and abusing other members creates a toxic atmosphere. That's not what CoinTalk is about. Let's just do what we enjoy without getting beaten up for it.

 

Neither of those are proofs. The surfaces aren't glassy. The rims aren't square but taper down. The lettering sits down, it doesn't jump off. The same with the detail in the profile, it's a sitter, not a jumper. The denticles are weak and mushy, not strong. Both coins look cleaned, although the 1896 still looks MS, with no evidence of wear, just compromised surface luster, and left a little on the flat side for it. I think it could go MS63 Details, or MS62, depending primarily on the depths of those coin hits.

 

Great post. Thanks. You beat me to some of the technical aspects of Morgans that I was going to hit upon. Best post!

 

Here’s mine for another reference. ICG MS64+

 

If I'm being generous, zero.

 

Here is my coin for that date, an ICG 63 PL. One can compare the OP’s coin with this, and it is readily apparent that his ‘96 is not a proof. Heck, it isn’t even Prooflike.

 

@Kevin Farley you are the king of wishful thinking.
Did you send those first day certified?

By the way, I went to the profile page and it seems that Kevin is no longer with US.