| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 1,924 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
I can't tell if the mark on the back of this Morgan dollar is a smudge or damage from chemical cleaning. It has a fingerprint on the obverse, but I suspect the mark on the reverse has been cleaned.    |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
1273 Posts |
MS64.
It looks like a cleaning attempt has been made in that section? Else why the two distinct colours. Maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4680 Posts |
Someone mishandled that one, several obverse fingerprints.
I would give this one a good acetone soak and see if it helps.
MS63 for me
Edited by Ty2020b
06/16/2020 1:44 pm
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
220 Posts |
Strong possibility your 2x2 has been damaged and letting something in. Don't ask how I know this.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1530 Posts |
Looks as if someone took a cotton swab, soaked it in something and brushed the area on the reverse.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36832 Posts |
MS-64. Looks like a good candidate for a dip in E-Z-Est. Those look like smudges and finger marks with no harsh cleaning.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
18687 Posts |
I don't think anything can help the obverse. technically MS64 but eye appeal and those prints are killing it for value. also looking at the field around BUS on the obverse and flat areas on the reverse is giving me the impression that the coin as cleaned (overdipped) and something was used like jewelers luster to brighten it up. it would not surprise me this came back as UNC details
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
Luster looks original. I'll say MS-64 straight grade. Don't dip it as that might kill the luster without resolving the issues, and knock it down to an AU. An MS-64, even an ugly one, is worth way more to collectors than a previously nice MS piece rendered AU by over-dipping. TPG's don't take much if anything off for a fingerprint but they will bury a coin if it has had luster stripped. Even with the print this one has acceptable eye appeal. Edited by fenton
06/16/2020 6:05 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3237 Posts |
@fenton can't tell if people are looking at the right part of the coin. The area with the smudge in question is by the left wing of the eagle on the reverse, not the fingerprint on the obverse.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
@SamCoin To the left of the wing is probably some residue from a holder. Soak it in pure Acetone to see if that comes off. If you mean the area by the tip of the wing I'm not too concerned with that not uncommon to see spotty toning. Not sure what exactly causes that but I don't think it hurts the coin. Not seeing any abrasive marks that would indicate someone tried to mess with that surface.
Edited by fenton
06/16/2020 6:38 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
Interesting. Yeah, I don't see any evidence of abrasion, but it looked so unnatural and restricted to such a strange area of the coin, I assumed it had to be cleaning.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
744 Posts |
You should keep that photo to show newbies what happens when you handle silver coins with bare hands... I cringe when I see someone do that...
I'm thinking it looks like at some point it was in the old plastic flips/holder like the Mint used in the 50's
Other than that it's a very nice Morgan...'
Edited by mtuma3
06/16/2020 7:55 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
Yeah, it's definitely a shame about the prints. It came from my dad's childhood collection, but highly doubt he was the one who got prints on it, as all the coins he pulled from circulation new are very clean and well cared for. If it's from old plastic flips, is there any chance acetone would remove it, or has it etched the metal?
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,924 |
|
Posted 06/16/2020 1:28 pm
