| Author |
 Replies: 26 / Views: 3,317 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
 167 Posts |
This toning is the result of the coin being placed in an ideal environment for toning. Unfortunately, PCGS considers it not market acceptable. I disagree, it's vivid, deep and wholly natural in my opinion. A couple major differentiators you'll see on market acceptable toning that are generally absent on AT coins are present on this coin, namely elevation chromatics and pull-away toning.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Well, if the coin has been placed in the same conditions as NT coins were, how could it by definition be AT? PCGS makes decisions based on odd reasoning some times.
I'm seeing glorious, near-impossible NT here I'd believe in nothing but a Morgan.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7641 Posts |
The reverse is "market acceptable" in my opinion. The obverse is not.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
I think that the obverse would make the coin be considered AT. For that I will say MS-details questionable color. It still looks very nice though.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2254 Posts |
Quote:
This toning is the result of the coin being placed in an ideal environment for toning Sorry for the late post. Can you elaborate on this? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
Need more detailed high resolution photos. Color seems questionable does not surprise me that PCGS won't slab it.
|
|
Valued Member
167 Posts |
The coin was placed in an environment that has a lot of sulfur in the air, on a farm. Two other coins that were with it, but not as vibrantly toned, graded just fine. MS65 and MS64+.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Doesn't matter what PCGS thought. You could be completely honest about this coin's background and it's still as liquid as liquid gets.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1531 Posts |
 WHOA! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1566 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5404 Posts |
I agree that PCGS MAY have it right . May look good..........they probably thought too good. I sent two similar to this from an original bank roll put away in the 1960's (same date and mint mark 1881 S) to NGC and both came back as AT coins. I think the grading companies are liability twitchy! PCGS may have put this OP piece in their sniffer and it detected the very high sulphur content.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
The TPG's are definitely twitchy about these and sophisticated collectors know it. This is why I'm unworried about the coin's marketability. |
|
Valued Member
167 Posts |
Should I crack and resubmit it? The reality is that if I can get it to pass through grading cleanly, it's value will be greatly increased.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
I really can't say I like your chances. The TPG will almost certainly cover their butt, even though the grader would tell you in private he loved the coin. |
|
Valued Member
United States
245 Posts |
If you are trying to sell it to someone who collect toned morgans, and to everyone who knows, it looks NT, then where would be the added value of getting it slabbed, as long as they confirm it authentic coin... 2/3 passed aint bad :)
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 26 / Views: 3,317 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 12/28/2014 4:25 pm
