Hi...So I have this 1896 Morgan I picked up recently at a flea market. It wasnt expensive and I liked the toning it had, but also appeared to have definately spent some time being knocked around. There was a strange look to it but the lighting was bad and like i said, it was cheap. So after inspecting it closely, it is just not the same as any others that I have or have seen before. It is reflective like a mirror. It also has all these little specks on it, which may very well just be additional strange toning. So I think maybe its been whizzed years ago. Thing is i see no evidence of swirling anywhere and the sharp surface gets right into the smallest nook and crevice even of the letters. ( like middle of an O). So i think ok, not whizzed. Dmpl? No cameo goin on. Maybe quick dipped long ago but still like a mirror. So, maybe a circulated proof? I can think of a thousand reasons it could have got into circulation during the depression. Ive gone on vamworld to match up die pairings. Cant get a positive id due to some contact marks thus leaving questions. Other than bringing it to an expert, which I dont have quick easy access to, is there anything else i can check? I have very little real world, in hand experience with DMPL or old proof coins. Here are some pics, of the coin, reflectivity, close up area of the date as there are different styles, and an attempt at a side ish view while shining a light in the dark.. Ill gladly take more if you tell me what you need. Any help would be great!!!! Something special or junk piece? Thank you!!!
Something doesn't look right about that Morgan. I'll let the Morgan dollar people respond but the coin don't look real to me. Right around her eye looks really bad. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think so. better luck next time! edited: Yep, I must be wrong as CBD is usually right!
I think that it is genuine, but it has been knocked around quite a lot and polished to give it a shine.
If you can see the reflection of the print on Liberty's face and on the eagle, you can be sure that the coin has been polished. Chris
Yes, it is reflective on liberty as well as the field. Same way a 1956 Franklin Proof would be if it was kickin around in change for a year. I have checked this thing high and low with every trick and method i can find and have found zero evidence of it ever having been whizzed or scrubbed or shined up in any abrasive way. The "mirror" effect is also in places youd never be able to effectively alter. Im not saying there may not have been a dip or 2 over the last 125 years. If we were to assume that the reflective quality and overall condition are genuine. If you disagree, PLEASE TELL ME WHY, and how to confirm that. Please. A PL or DMPL will have the frosted look to the devices when deemed so by the grading gods, but would that frosting wear off in circulation? And would this not be the result? PL and DMPL are conditions. Proof is a type of coin production. A circulated proof is still a proof. How would you then tell the difference between a PL or DMPL and a PROOF. Does anyone know a specific pip to check? Its 1930, you dont have a job, your kids starvin, but your dad gave you this pretty coin a while back. Its gettin spent. I realize its a long shot and i dont care what the verdict is. But i want to establish for sure what I actually do have. Thank you all again for your input.
What evidence would there be of polishing i could find. I have not been able to find any at all. Would an average 1950's franklin with some circulation not reflect the same as this morgan?
There were 762 proof coins struck for this year. You can tell this is not a proof just by looking at the denticles. Chris
I already told you why it has been polished. I'm not going to debate the issue with someone who won't listen. Chris
Im not trying to debate you, im trying to learn. And i very well realize there is a snowballs shot in the sun that this would actually be a proof. I did not get any relevant verifyable information from your statement that it was polished. What marks, evidence, etc would i find to verify that? And how would i find them? Because ive already done that in every way i can find and none are confirming that. Look, im not tryin to pick a fight, and im not that guy that asks dumb questions without attempting to learn as much as he can. But if reflective devices are all your gonna throw out there and then call me out as wishing on a star, id rather you didnt.... So again, for me, and anyone else that might find this and BE the 1 on a million guy that finds a needle in a stack of needles. What exactly do you do and what specific detailed evidence will be present on an altered coin of the type you are saying?
Your coin has had a rough life. Take a look at pictures of other 1896 proofs on Vam World and PCGS. The obvious difference is the placement of the date on the proof vs your coin. I’m sure if you dig hard enough you can find die markers to compare to your coin. IMO it’s not a proof. Continue the Hunt.
At this point none of this is even about the coin if you guys could take a step back and understand that. Ok, so its not a proof, fine, cool...i dont care. My biggest reason in creating this post other than to confirm beyond any doubt that there was not something special about it was to learn more about how to tell the difference in detail between a DMPL and a circulated proof since i dont own a proof morgan, a dmpl, or a whizzed coin to campare it to. Almost all the info on the net boils it down to stronger strike and perfect surfaces, but goes very little beyond that and no info on circulated pieces. I was really hoping for some real intelligent discussion and information on specifics and also detailed info on residual evidence from whizzing. All i got was, its not a proof, the dates not right (there are 3 different date placement btw for this year proof) , i already told you, and attitude like that with no info or substance behind it. Huge reason why ive done as little on these forums as i have. Attitude. Ive spent ungodly anounts of hours matching vams, reading books, reading articles, reading websites, going crosseyed looking through loupes, but ive also learned over the years nothing beats real world experience and i was hoping to pick some brains here over a friendly hypothetical. I never argued anyones diagnosis, only asked for reasons why. Not to argue, but to learn. Maybe yall dont know and dont have any info to offer? I dont know. If i was a newbie though and caught this attitude, i cant say id come back. So AGAIN...its not a proof, you say its buffed. Cool. But if anyone would like to share any knowledge on what details to look for to confirm these things, that might not be easily available online, thatd be great. Again, not looking to argue, or make bad blood, but come on....
You learn by looking at thousands and thousands of coins. When you have done that you will understand. There are no magic words that will help you. You have to learn how to spot cleaned and polished coins by looking at them. Your coin is a perfect example.
The only person who used the term "whizzed" was you. The only person who used the term "buffed" was you. If you don't know what the word "polished" means, then I can't help you. As for learning how to spot a DMPL Morgan, take Larry's aka @ldhair advice and look at thousands of coins. Photos can be misleading, especially to someone who doesn't know what they should be looking for. Chris
Best to go to your local coin shop and have them show you examples of a proof, proof like, a DMPL, polished, etc.
