| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 3,690 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
6607 Posts |
 Photos just not clear enough |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
The photos are not good but the coin looks worse.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18689 Posts |
agree. MM does not look correct
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3663 Posts |
I agree with @westernsky, the photos are not clear enough to be sure. Would you be willing to post clear close-up photos of:  the date the mint mark the edge of the coin next to the "DOL" of DOLLAR Thanks! |
|
Valued Member
United States
484 Posts |
the reverse rim looks to be split somehow.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
I'd say genuine, but altered surfaces. Probably polished.
Edited by fenton
07/15/2020 07:38 am
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
OP - what makes you say the coin is definitely genuine? To me it appears to be a Chinese forgery. Keep in mind most 85 CC Morgans were stored in bags until the 1960's and for the most part were quite baggy. This coin does not have any sign of being stored with nearly no marks or rub on the high points. If genuine it would be MS66 to MS67 maybe even approaching 68. Quite a remarkable example to be sitting raw in a dealer's inventory. Too good to be true I say.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7628 Posts |
Opinions here seem to be all over the map. We can discuss this coin till the cows come in but we will still be scratching our heads.
I think it needs to be sent in for 3rd party grading. ANACS would be best for a quick and economical evaluation.
|
|
Valued Member
 United Kingdom
129 Posts |
Dear Friends, thanks for all the inputs. I really appreciate it. Got the coin in hand today and this is definitely a wonderfully made fake. Only thing that gave it away was the thickness of the coin which did not look right to me and Upon comparison with geniune morgans I found that to be a tad thicker. Believe me, this coin will fool many as the weight was spot on and the obverse was a genuine semi proflike 1885. This possibly could be a perfect infusion of two different geniune coins. I still believe this coin has a 5% chance to be genuine but does not worth a 310$ gamble so packed and ready to go back to the seller. Thanks again for all your inputs.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7628 Posts |
Wise decision. When in doubt, don't!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
With respect, this coin has a 0% chance of being genuine. It is a straight-out fake, with many markers.  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
$310 is about half of what a well circulated example is worth. If it's too good to be true.....well you know...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
What is the weight on it? If silver, then probably genuine. None of the fakers bother to use the right metal.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
129 Posts |
It weighed perfect. Scale flickered between 26.7 and 26.8 which is what I see for all my genuine Morgans in my scale. I do believe it is silver as well.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5676 Posts |
If it's thicker than a genuine Morgan and the weight is correct, then it almost certainly isn't silver. The reason they made it thicker it to get the weight right when using a lighter metal.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 19 / Views: 3,690 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 07/12/2020 12:34 pm
