The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

5.5 for me. Nice looking dime!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That Rosie is gorgeous. I'd be at 5.5

 

I love that dime! The two sided toning is an extra plus! Considering my lower graded example was a low 5, this one borders on a monster for me, so I will say 5.9.

 

Ok, in the meantime, another Morgan. 1882s PCGS MS 65 CAC. OGH. This one I call “The Fireball.”

 

Dime from prior page is still in play along with the current Morgan

....I'll go with 5.0
...gem with nice colors but a few toning breaks keep the score a little lower for me

 

That dime is very nice!! I bet there are colors on Roosevelt's face that pop that just are not showing up in the TruView. I can see hints of them. Also the field around LIBERTY likes to go dark when photographing, I bet it lights up like the rest of the surfaces. I would go 5.8 on it.

The Morgan is a very nice looker, I would not mind one bit owning that one. I would go 5.3 on it. I like the russet colors with the hints of rainbow out around the periphery.

 

For the 1882-S Morgan, I have to say this coin has a lot going for it. There are some nice transitions on the right side, and a good amount of green, which is always nice. The colors on the right side are vibrant, and I could easily see this coin being considered a monster if that type of coloring extended throughout the entire obverse. This coin should also literally be the plate coin illustrating pull away toning, which is always nice to see.

Once you move past that crescent of vibrancy from about 12:30 to 6:30, then the coin has less going for it. Given that the entire obverse isn't blanketed with color, I do like the fact that somehow, there is little to no color on about half of Liberty's hair. We also have some transitions from yellows to blues, with a hint of burgundy and the continuation of pull away toning on the stars. And, of course, in terms of toning, the reverse is just a solid "meh."

I would totally own this coin. Take everything I just said, and then put it in an MS-65 rattler with a CAC sticker, and you've got a winner.

In pure color terms, I'd call this a 4.8. IMO, it's held back by the relative lack of vibrancy on the face, and, compared to the late 2nd into 3rd cycle toning on the right, those 1st cycle blues are not doing it any favors. In fact, it may have made a better impression were the left side the more vibrantly toned one, simply because that's where the prime focal points of the coin are.

I would definitely pay a pretty good premium for this coin.

 

I like both coins but when I look back to when this thread started, @Morgandude11 posted this coin and it was given a 5 by a few members.


Compared to that I find it difficult to give that high a number to the last 2 coins posted. Therefore,
4.4 on the Dime
4.7 on the Morgan.
I can take the heat if you want to fire away. lol

 

Not that I'm lobbying for a better grade on my dime, but there's no way that 1884-O is just a 5.0. I'd say more like 5.7 or better. It looks like that coin was up before they were doing decimal scores. I'm pretty sure it would score higher than 5.0 under the latest rules.

 

Wow, thats a pretty dime, 5.7
I am at 5 on the Morgan.

 

No heat, that is your opinion. I disagree on both. Each person has their own standards.

 

I rate the Morgan as a 5.4. Definitely not a monster, but very vibrant colors. Looks even more glowing in hand. There is toning in the hair, that is lighter than the surrounding golden area. It has more of a platinum look. At any rate, this is one of my favorites that I still own, despite the fact that it is not a wild beast.

 

@thomas mozzillo it is like what Paul mentioned. At that point we were not using decimals and 6 was the max. So everything high end but below monster would receive a 5.

Also the photo is somewhat out of focus. Here is a link to the PCGS TrueView.
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/39111297

While it's no longer posted, I also saw a video of the coin when it was originally listed for sale and that influenced my opinion of it being a low 5.

 

@Paul M. please let us know your score on the dime and feel free to post your previously referenced quarter next (if you want to).

 

5.6 on th 82S Morgan.

 

My opinion of the dime is that it's just barely short of being a real monster. The colors are vibrant, the whole coin is toned, and, yes, under slightly better lighting conditions, those darker areas on both the obverse and reverse come out with some strong reds. I've seen some come close and some roughly equal it in terms of color, but I've never seen one that just blew me away and made me think "Yeah, that's totally better than mine."

I'd have to give it at least a 5.8, because, if it isn't a monster, it's at least a very scary wild animal with big, nasty teeth!

I'll post the quarter in a couple of hours when I get back to my computer.

 

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 (scale is loosely followed/more opinion)
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. 68: 1985-O Morgan Raw UNC [Dual]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 2 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 69: 1897 Indian Cent NGC PF 66* RB Cam [Dual]...CT-> 5.2 (High) vs You-> 4.9 (Mid-High)

Summary Chapter 3 (added that monsters go from 6.0-6.9)
Rd. 70: 1887 Morgan NGC MS65* [Obv]...CT -> 6.3 (Monster) vs You -> 6.5 (Monster)
Rd. 71: 1914 German Mark PCGS MS68 [Dual]...CT -> 3.3 (Mid) vs You -> 3.0 (Mid)
Rd. 72: 1958 Lincoln Proof Raw UNC [Dual]...CT-> 2.9 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 73: 1978 Ike ICG MS 64 [Dual]...CT-> 2.4 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 74: 1976-D Ike ICG MS 64 [Dual]...CT-> 3.0 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 75: 1963 Lincoln Proof Raw UNC [Dual]...CT-> 2.9 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 76: 1881-s Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 5.7 (High) vs You -> 5.8 (High)
Rd. 77: 1936 Buffalo Nickel NGC MS67 [Obv]...CT -> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 78: 1964 Jefferson Nickel PCGS PR66 [Dual]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.6 (High)
Rd. 79: 1740-60 Germany Klippe NGCS MS62 [Dual]...CT -> 3.4 (Mid) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 80: 1957 Washington Quarter NGC MS 67 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 81: 1882-S Morgan NGC MS65* [Obv]...CT -> 5.2 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
Rd. 82: 1955 Lincoln Cent Anacs MS64RB [Dual]...CT-> 4.7(Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 83: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS66 [Obv]...CT -> 5.8 (High) vs You -> 6.2 (Monster)
Rd. 84: 1938-D Buffalo Nickel [Dual]...CT -> 3.7 (Mid) vs You -> 5.7 (High)
Rd. 85: Norfolk NGC MS68 [Dual]...CT -> 4.7 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.7 (High)
Rd. 86: 1879-S Morgan PCGS MS65 [Dual]...CT -> 5.5 (High) vs You -> 6.1 (Monster)
Rd. 87: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS66 [Dual]...CT -> 6.5 (Monster) vs You -> 6.6 (Monster)
Rd. 88: 1976-S Washington Quarter [Obv]...CT -> 5.2 (High) vs You -> 5.3 (High)
Rd. 89: 1939-D Oregon PCGS MS68 [Dual]...CT -> 6.2 (Monster) vs You -> 6.3 (Monster)
Rd. 90: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS64 PL [Rev]...CT -> 5.9 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 91: 1962 Lincoln Cent PCGS PF66BN [Dual]...CT-> 5.1 (High) vs You-> 5.7 (High)
Rd. 92: 1885-O Morgan NGC MS64* [Obv]...CT -> 5.9 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 93: 1965 Washington Quarter Raw Unc [Dual]...CT-> 4.4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4.7 (Mid-High)
Rd. 94: 1970-S Washington Quarter Proof [Dual]...CT-> 3.5 (Mid) vs You-> 4.4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 95: 1923-S Peace NGC MS63* [Dual]...CT -> 6.0 (Monster) vs You -> 6.6 (Monster)
Rd. 96: 1915-S Pan Pac Half PCGS MS66 [Dual]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.5 (High)
Rd. 97: 1954 Washington Quarter NGC MS 66 [Obv]...CT -> 1.8 (Low) vs You -> 1.5 (Low)
Rd. 98: 1957-D Washington Quarter NGC MS 66 [Rev]...CT -> 2.0 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 1.5 (Low)
Rd. 99: 1870 H10c Raw [Dual]...CT-> 3.6 (Mid) vs You-> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 100: 1946-D Washington Quarter UNC Raw [Dual]...CT -> 4.0 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.0 (Mid-High)
Rd. 101: 1881-O Morgan PCGS MS65+ [Obv]...CT -> 6.3 (Monster) vs You -> 6.5 (Monster)
Rd. 102: 1963 Canada 25c PCGS PL 64 [Dual]...CT -> 3.4 (Mid) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 103: 1982 Norway 100 Kroner UNC Raw [Dual]...CT -> 3.8 (Mid) vs You -> 4.0 (Mid-High)
Rd. 104: 1971-S Nickel PCGS PR 68 [Dual]...CT -> 5.2 (High) vs You -> 5.3 (High)
Rd. 105: 1968-S Kennedy PCGS PR 68 [Dual]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 4.5 (Mid-High)
Rd. 106: 1963 Dime NGC MS 62 [Dual]...CT -> 5.2 (High) vs You -> 5.1 (High)
Rd. 107: 1883-O Morgan PCGS MS 63 [Obv]...CT -> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 4.0 (Mid-High)
Rd. 108: 1944 Canada 25c Raw Unc [Dual]...CT -> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.0 (High)
Rd. 109: 1962 Dime PCGS MS 66+ [Dual]...CT -> 5.4 (High) vs You -> 5.8 (High)
Rd. 110: 1882-S Morgan PCGS MS 65 [Obv]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
______
*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

 

Current order of posting:
@Paul M. in a few hours
....(you)...let me know if you want to be added to the list

 

Here are the seller shots of my 1964-D type set quarter, graded PCGS MS64, and badly composited together by me.

Again, I don't want to lobby for a high grade on this coin, but, I want to caution you that the scale for Washington quarters is very, very different from most other coins. Rarely will you find a 2 sided toner that's got anything interesting going on with both sides. And, overall, color on these coins tends to be more of the muted variety (as on the reverse of this coin) than the more vibrant type of color that makes people go "wow!" on Morgan dollars and other coins.

Before voting on this, I'd invite you to take a look through PCGS CoinFacts to see what high grade Washington quarter toners look like. @Skyman here also has a series on Washington quarter toners for his Dansco albums. Take a look at what goes into the "A" album, and compare to this, too.

 

Very nice yellow and Orange-red toning on the obverse. Minimal toning on the reverse. I have compared it to four other Washington quarters we’ve reviewed. The color is limited in coverage, and does not cover the devices. I can’t go higher than 3.25.