Okay, is this one MS or AU?

That's correct - they won't be over-paying for anything anytime soon

These wholesalers' profit margins aren't large. They're maybe making a buck or buck fifty per silver dollar.

But it starts to add up when you're trading thousands of coins a day

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Because "mint state" refers to the wear, not any change in color or patina.

 

Won't dignify that one with an answer here. There are many threads on toning--read them. You clearly don't know the fact that virtually all Silver coins from that era would be "toned" today, due to oxidation, and that is the 'Normal" mint state for today. Read the threads on toning, and get an understanding that bright, shiny coins from the 1870s and 1880s are dipped coins, and not original.

 

There was thinking like that back when the GSA did its thing on the Morgans. Not that everyone back then conceived of tarnish as environmental damage, although a fair amount did. As far as circulated goes I think the GSA certainly reflected the prevailing bias when it neglected to slab them in the "Uncirculated" holders.

That was in the day unscrupulous dealers dipped tarnish out. Now they dip it in. Or so I'm told.

 

lol!

 

Corrosion is a strong, strong word in the coin world. It refers to deep toning/excessive pitting deeper than the surface that cannot be removed safely/completely. Mint state refers to a coin without wear, excessive/very large/long marks, and corrosion. I don't see why some people think that (not meat as 74teen) tarnish is unattractive. I'd rather have a deeply toned MS-63 than a overdipped white MS66 in an NGC holder.

 

Wait... Are you saying that the GSA DIPPED the CC dollars?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

No, frosty. The way they slabbed these just reflected the attitude tarnished meant circulated. That's why the tarnished ended up in the "Silver Dollar" slabs and not the "Uncirculated Silver Dollar" slabs.

 

Oh. Whoops.

 

Wow. "You clearly don't know" is kind of harsh, perhaps short of a personal attack, but somewhat harsh none the less. I did say "no offense." I meant no disrespect to you. What is 'clear' in each person's eyes is what they see through their filters. I do know that metals oxidize. And I do know that it's possible to inhibit that process to a great extent.

But sorry, to me, tarnish would keep any coin from being considered Mint State. I'm sure it's just semantics, and given, I'm a fairly recent retread to numismatics. If that is the accepted definition, I apologize heartily (and it seems to be, so I do). But, for my own collection, I'll avoid a tarnished coin every time, unless it's an absolute bargain. Personally, I prefer have one that looks like it may have been slapped down on the bar to buy friends a round a few times. I had the same discussion at my LCS today, and both myself and the proprietor seemed satisfied when we agreed to disagree and I left him in possession of some crisp, new bills as I walked out in possession of some new to me coins, including a delightful non-Mint State "low grade" Peace Dollar.

Again, I meant no disrespect to either you or your coin. I have been lurking on the forum for a few months now, and have read dozens of threads about toned coins. I've also read dozens of your threads, and would not even consider questioning your knowledge or experience. Please accept my apologies.

 

edit - forget it

 

No malice intended, and apology accepted. It is just that there is a controversy about toned coins--people tend to either like them or hate them, with little in between. If one doesn't like them, fine--just understand that the NATURAL state of a 150 year old coin is to have some sort of color, as Silver reacts with the atmospheric and storage condition around it. NO silver coin, unless it was hermetically sealed in an airless vault would be brilliant, blazing white after that period of time. So, if you can imagine all the Morgan dollars that are shiny and new looking having been dipped, it is far more accurate than the representation that coins from the 1870s-1900 or so are bright, white today. This has nothing to do with the level of surface preservation--the two are completely different issues. One could have a MS 68 heavily toned coin, as the surfaces of the coin are untouched by any wear and have minimal marks. Likewise, one could have a bright, shiny coin that has many contact marks and evidence of wear. The two (toning and surface preservation) are completely exclusive of each other.

 

AU, I can see some wear on her and just can't see her going Unc

 

I would have expected the thread title to change to red, blinking text if you had said otherwise. :devil:

 

Doesn't this second observation contradict the first?

If "virtually all" coins tone over the course of a century's storage, how did the GSA manage to offer so many blast-white examples?

 

Really? I thought that they were placed in the soft packs, the "non-uncirculated" (by GSA standards at least) ones.

 

That's a good point. Certainly many of the tarnished coins ended up in the soft-packs. Let's just call that, the ones with the more circulation wear. Untarnished coins with appreciable circulation wear ended up in the soft-packs, too, along with those. Still, only the blast white coins ended up in the "Uncirculated" slabs, not the better-conditioned tarnished coins, and it's no coincidence that was indicative of the prevailing attitude back then, as well, that tarnish and uncirculated simply didn't equate.