This is the same coin I posted yesterday with crappy pictures and I mostly got altered, dipped, doesn't look natural, messed with, slider at best comments. Just wanted to change the heading so people would take another look but it's been 24 hours so no can do. So I'm re posting the same coin with different comments and better pictures I hope.
OK, so maybe the comments were my fault because I was struggling with my camera yesterday, and TobyJ suggested better pictures. So took some more photos under different lighting and conditions. So do you still see this as an un natural altered 58 slider?
I'll go into this blind, as I didn't see your other post.
MS-63, but very possibly Details. Looks over dipped to me. I see a thumbprint on the reverse and based on the residual toning on the reverse, looks like it was dipped, but left the residual toning and thumbprint. Obverse streak is a bit distracting for me, but I wouldn't attempt a dip if it were mine, would probably kill any remaining original skin, if there is any. Surfaces look a bit lifeless to me, but could be the lighting/pics.
AU58 details. the reason I'm at AU is the 81(S) should be sharp and bold. the wheat spikes show some dullness and light wear as well as the high points on the hair around the face and the oak leaves. the very tips of the wings also look like they have very light wear. didn't notice the fingerprint on the reverse but that doesn't help. whatever it is, the black line on the obverse imo is not from the mint. since its a pretty good bet this cannot be removed I'm calling it PMD and I think someone at some point attempted to remove it possibly dipping it resulting the flat blotchy surfaces across both sides.
I now have submitted nearly 300 Morgan and Peace dollars for grading at this forum, and among all those submissions I don't believe that I've disagreed with many more than perhaps 5. This Morgan with it's confusing dark streak and my less than perfect imaging, apparently has garnered comments that I just can't seem to agree with. The coin is so much different in hand than I seem able to photograph. A number of you have said that this coin has been dipped. Examine the other photographs from the first time I listed this, especially the original seller photos. To me those photos are definitive and show no evidence of dipping. Dipping would not leave the coins natural toning as it has, and again my apologies for less than professional photography. Here is that link .................. http://goccf.com/t/402656
In hand, the streak is obviously natural. I never said it was from the mint. Something whether in an album or a drawer partially laid across the face of this coin that imparted a dark streak at the edge of whatever it was as well as slightly darkening the area covered. I have seen partially dipped coins and it is impossible to only dip one side of a coin in Ezest or MS70 or anything else, and the reverse shows no sign of dipping whatsoever. And since this is natural toning, toning does not change a coin from MS to AU, neither can a finger print.
As to whether or not there might be what is considered wear. If anything whatever might be there is certainly so minute that I couldn't call it anything more than rub. And cabinet rub if I understand the term is where the phrase "slider" came from. A coin that may have got some of the very highest points "rubbed" from sliding in a drawer or cabinet. But there also seems to be a less than agreed upon opinion about whether or not "rub" can downgrade a coin from MS to AU.
So that/those are my opinions, and since I so rarely disagree with this forums opinions/grades, I thought I would explain why.
Like always though I highly value the opinions of all here and know that the consensus of this forum is usually correct, and I even in the few times I disagree am usually incorrect in my assessments..
A lot of coins get dipped and unless you know the history it can be undetectable. Some coins get dipped and re-tone. It is common that sellers will try to remove a black streak with dipping as the streak hurts the value of the coin. Some dipped coins that are heavily toned will leave a residual after the dip. Your coin photos appear to show the residual after dipping. All anyone on this forum can do is evaluate the photos. The value of this coin makes no difference if it is dipped on not dipped as the black streak hurts the value.
I have some dipped 64 silver Kennedy's with the same type of black streak that have been dipped as I dipped the coins. If you would like to see the photos of the coins, let me know.
I dipped this coin and it looks similar to your coin.
When I dipped the coin, the black streaks on the obverse did not come off. You can see some of the residual toning or etching after dip around the date and letters. This coin shows muted luster after the dip as the coin had terminal black toning covering most of the coin on both sides. Sorry do not have pre dip photos.
On the reverse there is some residual toning or etching left around the letters.
Agreed, there are certainly some similarities between your Kennedy and my !881 S Morgan. But because there are similarities does not mean identical. It appears that you dipped your Kennedy 3 or four times at different levels into the dip to produce those lines between dip and no dip. Here is a Morgan that I posted to this forum February 7th 2020. http://goccf.com/t/366977&SearchTer...uaihawaiiguy It obviously had tape across it's surface for quite some time and because of that it toned at a different rate depending on what the tape was covering. On this coin the tape was somewhat centered, but had it been further to the side without a second line showing that it was probably tape, it would have caused the same uneven toning as this 1881 s. Here are images of that entire coin and then a close up of the uneven toned edge. It was a 1896 P by the way. Notice that the line is just as uneven as the 81 S. Around the ES in states, below the OF in of. Even though the tape had a straight edge didn't cause the toning to be straight as well, as in my 81 S.
The bottom line as I see it is that whether or not a dip or an inadvertent piece of paper, cardboard or something else caused that line is equally probable and either is no more than speculation.
Quote: It appears that you dipped your Kennedy 3 or four times at different levels into the dip to produce those lines between dip and no dip.
The Kennedy was only dipped once about 15 seconds. The black lines on the Kennedy were not created by the dipping. The black lines were created by something with high sulfur content making contact with the coin like rubber bands and the dip would not remove the black lines and left residual dark toning.
The black line on your Morgan was not created by dipping.
Quote: I still see it as dipped however you put it.
And I appreciate and value your opinion, and if that's how you see it then that's how you see it. It's an 81 S, and a raw 1881 S Morgan in upper AU routinely sells for $40 to $70 at eBay today, so me seeing it another way has nothing to do with expectations of some great value to this Morgan, I don't sell my coins anyway. I just see it differently. I've seen partially dipped coins and they seem to have a stark demarcation line, while this 81 S is a gradual fading line, more like that gray area between the toned and un-toned parts of a coin from being covered by something. Right at the 5 minute mark is when he pulls the coin out of the solution for the second time. Interesting.