The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

3.4, I dunno, lots of blues and purples just don’t do it for me.....again, I make no claims that my opinion on nickels should mean anything....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This doesn’t pop but certain spots are pretty 3.9

 

People don’t know Jeffersons that well. It is beautiful. 5.5 Don’t expect Morgan toning on a modern Jefferson, that has modern storage. They did not sit in damp mint bags. Nice coin @brg5658.

 

The Jefferson reminds me of that last few seconds of light in the sky after the sun has set just before the sky goes dark.

 

That was actually my thought as well...in my view, the color on the proof pops more (is more vivid)....so my score is similar to your score...... 3.2

 

This color scheme really turns me off. I’m not saying I think that this Jefferson is AT, but the fact remains that many AT coins display this blue/violet color scheme. In addition, the colors don’t seem to pop, rather they look like they mute the luster. I’m at 2.5 on this one.

 

My score on this Jeff is a 3.0. I knew @Lehigh96 would hate it - because of the colors involved. I have a 2nd coin, same year, same date, same grade, same invoice number - that is very similarly toned (see below). The strike on the first one I posted is much better than this 2nd one.

I don't think either is AT (NGC deemed them market acceptable), and the slabs are at least 23 years old. I have owned the pair for over 7 years.

 

I don’t think either of your coins are AT, I just avoid that color scheme like the plague. It’s guilt by association, and the blue/purple AT color scheme is pervasive across alloys & denominations. Do you remember that AT Franklin Half Dollar thread I wrote years ago? Had that same blue/purple color scheme.

PS, I like the second coin better and would probably put that in the low 3’s.

 

The strike is just SOOOO soft on the 2nd one. As a "type coin" the first one wins no question. As a slightly more attractive color, the 2nd one probably wins.

 

The 1950-D has been the bane of my existence for the better part of a decade. I swear I think I’ve had 10+ coins fill that slot in my registry set over the years. My latest addition has light monochromatic toning with blazing luster and razor sharp steps. My brother @Springford CC found it in an assembled 1950-D mint set in a capital plastic holder. He showed it to me and my jaw hit the floor. I looked at him and said “you know this is an MS67 5FS right?” So his homemade now claims permanent residency in my registry set.

 

Nice example!

 

Beautiful coin and strike. But I’m not seeing this supposed “monochromatic toning” - it looks like a lustrous completely untoned coin to me.

 

It has light champagne toning.

 

Which sounds like a fancy way of saying it is untoned.

 

Is that after you drink champagne?

 

Vile stuff won’t touch it

 

Killer luster. Toning is subtle but there. For toning I’d give it a 1 for eye appeal for a 50-d I’d give it a 6

 

@SSG_Gonzo I believe you're up next.

 

Has the total score been placed for yours?

 

Summary Chapter 1
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)
Rd. 7: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT-> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 8: 1939-D Lincoln PCGS MS65RB [Obv]...CT-> 4.1 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 9: 1972-D Ike PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT-> 2.3 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 2 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 10: 1892 GB Half Crown PCGS MS64 [Dual]...CT-> 4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 11: 1967 UK Half Crown PCGS MS65+ [Dual]...CT-> 3 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 12: 1963 Franklin NGC MS65+* FBL [Rev]...CT-> 4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 13: 1884-O Morgan PCGS MS63+ [Obv]...CT -> 5 (High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 14: 1899 GB 6 Pence PCGS MS65 [Dual]...CT-> 5 (High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 15: 1926 F.I.C. Piastre PCGS AU58 [Dual]...CT-> 3 (Mid) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 16: 1904 USP Peso NGC PF62 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 17: 1944 Jeff Nickel PCGS MS 66 [Obv]...CT-> 4.8 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 18: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS 66+ [Obv]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 19: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS 68+ [Obv]...CT-> 6 (Monster) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 20: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS 66+ [Obv]...CT-> 5.3 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 21: 1880-S Morgan NGC MS 66* [Obv]...CT-> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 22: 1941-D Jeff Nickel NGC MS 67* 5FS [Dual]...CT-> 4.9 (Mid-High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 23: 1961 Franklin 50c PCGS PR 65 [Dual]...CT-> 5.3 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 24: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 61* [Obv]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 25: 1941-D Jeff Nickel PCGS MS 66 FS [Dual]...CT-> 3.6 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 26: 1708 GB Shilling PCGS MS64 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 27: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS64 PL [Rev]...CT -> 5 (High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 28: 1835 10c PCGS AU58 [Rev]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 29: 1888 Morgan PCGS MS65+ [Obv]...CT -> 4 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 30: 1904-O Morgan NGC MS64 [Dual]...CT -> 3 (Mid) vs You -> 2 (Low-Mid)

Summary Chapter 2
Rd. 31: 1878 8tf Morgan PCGS MS66 [Obv]...CT -> 5.5 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 32: 1880-s Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 4.7 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.3 (High)
Rd. 33: 1881-S Morgan NGC MS 66* [Obv]...CT-> 5.6 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 34: 1868 4D Mdy PCGS MS 65 [Dual]...CT-> 3.1 (Mid) vs You-> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 35: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 64* [Obv]...CT-> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 36: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 64* [Obv]...CT-> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 37: 1881-S Morgan Raw [obv]...CT -> 1.8 (Low) vs You -> 1.7 (Low)
Rd. 38: 1877-CC Quarter PCGS AU 58 [Dual]...CT -> 3.4 (Mid) vs You -> 4.8 (Mid-High)
Rd. 39: 1919 Franc PCGS MS 66 [Dual]...CT -> 2.9 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 40: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 5.8 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 41: 1974-S Ike Raw [Obv]...CT -> 2.5 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 2.0 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 42: 1885-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Obv]...CT -> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3.0 (Mid)
Rd. 43: 1958-D Franklin NGC MS64* [Dual]...CT -> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.9 (Mid-High)
Rd. 44: 1886 Morgan PCGS MS66 [Obv]...CT -> 5.9 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 45: 1883-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Rev]...CT -> 3.5 (Mid) vs You -> 3.0 (Mid)
Rd. 46: 1958-D Franklin NGC MS67* [Dual]...CT -> 4.1 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.5 (High)
Rd. 47: 1888 Morgan Anacs MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
Rd. 48: 1961 10c PCGS MS66+ [Obv]...CT -> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.7 (Mid-High)
Rd. 49*: 1883 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.9 (High)
Rd. 50: 1884 Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 3.1 (Mid) vs You -> 4.0 (Mid-High)
Rd. 51: 1882-S Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 3.2 (Mid)
Rd. 52: 1878-S Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 3.7 (Mid)
Rd. 53: 1880-S Morgan NGC MS 64 [Obv]...CT-> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You-> 3.8 (Mid)
Rd. 54^: 1901-O Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 4.7 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.0 (High)
Rd. 55^: 1899-O Morgan NGC MS65* [Obv]...CT -> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 56: 1885-O Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 5.5 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
Rd. 57: 1883 Morgan PCGS MS65 [Obv]...CT -> 5.7 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 58: 1882-O Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 4.4 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.0 (High)
Rd. 59*: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 3.3 (Mid) vs You -> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 60: 2001 France Last Franc PCGS SP69 [Obv]...CT -> 3.7 (Mid) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 61: 1884-O Morgan PCGS MS65 [Obv]...CT -> 5.3 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
Rd. 62: 1944-D Jeff Nickel NGC MS 67 T [Dual]...CT-> 5 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 63: 1968-S Jeff Nickel PCGS PR 66 [Dual]...CT-> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4.8 (Mid-High)
Rd. 64: 1964 Jeff Nickel Anacs PF 67 [Dual]...CT-> 4.1 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 65: 1959 Lincoln Cent Raw UNC [Dual]...CT-> 5 (High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 66: 1963 Jeff Nickel Anacs PF 67 [Dual]...CT-> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5.5 (High)
Rd. 67: 1950-D Jeff Nickel NGC MS 67 [Dual]...CT-> 3.9 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
______
*Rd. 49 is presumed to be a juiced picture, so take the final scores with a grain of salt
^Rds. 54 & 55 are potentially pixelated pictures, which likely skewed the results
*Rd. 59 is presumed to be a juiced picture, so take the final scores with a grain of salt