The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

Oh, trust me, I can read. I guess I should have said "it's a pity that Morgans are the coins that are called Monsters"....I thought it was always just because she/he/it on the obverse is so ugly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I believe Morgans are called monsters since they are the most frequently encountered with a variety of nice colors. Plus they are one of the few coins that sat around in bags for ages and acquired colors from that storage method.

 

I am a Morgan man and to me they are all Monster grade. This post MS-65

 

@Lehigh96 let us know what your score was.
Until that point, please continue with Lehigh's Morgan.

@physics-fan3.14 you can post after Lehigh's reveal.

 

Oh, I get to vote on my own coin, I give it a 3

 

Summary
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)

 

Yep; the idea is to have a CT vs whoever posted it comparison (just for fun). And the poster of the coin portion is revealed at the end to prevent it from biasing the other responses.

@physics-fan3.14 you are up...

 

Two pics, same coin:

 

Because the toning is green, I’m giving it a 4.

 

3
..interesting pattern but not vivid enough to get to a 4

 

I think it’s a 3. Although EOR toners just don’t do it for me. Looks like it has nice luster. Prolly a 65 and I’m sure the colors look great in hand.

 

Reverse is an easy 4 imho.

 

4. Beautiful reverse toning. Not monster, but close. Love the coin, and would happily own it. At least a 65.

 

I'd say 3. IMO the market tends to prefer smoother transitions of toning, than the "sharp edge" transitions. It's still a lovely coin, just not higher than a 3 to me.

 

I think the greens and blues make it a high 3 (call it a 3.7), but I agree that it is a mid-range coin.

 

Summary
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)

 

Next up:

 

And please let me know if anyone has something to post next.

 

Ooh, this one's a great example. There are several things in its advantage:

1. The toning is on the obverse.
2. It has a clear, crisp, and well defined double crescent.
3. The toning progresses in a very clear fashion through 1st, 2nd, and beginning 3rd cycle toning. These color progressions in such a clear fashion, and especially in such a small area, are distinct and compelling.
4. Pull-away and elevation chromatics mark this as indisputably genuine.
5. Luster appears superb, and makes the toning shine.
6. I don't know who took the first picture (GC?), but it is miles ahead of the so-called "truview" with its dull, redshifted, lackluster "glamor" shot. I'd pay a lot more for the top coin than the bottom one.

While I realize the actual area toned is small, the quality of the toning makes me rank this as a *strong* 4, but not quite 5. Call it a 4.8.

If you're willing to progress to non-Morgans, I have plenty, just let me know.

 

Can we move to coins other than Morgans?