WOW ... Who did I off?
3 3

15 posts in this topic

15 posts

Just asking for some help grading this 889-CC Morgan Dollar if that isn't asking to much. Thanks Sue

z 1889 CC O.jpg

z 1889 CC R.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts

Hi J&B....I don't think you *spooned* anyone off.  The 1889-CC is a big key with many fakes made of it and I think that people that aren't as familiar with Morgan Dollars, like myself, are waiting for one of our Morgan Dollar people to chime in on this one.  They may not be online right now......just be patient, I know someone with the right skill set and knowledge will chime in when they're online.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help. 

~Tom

Edited by Mohawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts
4 minutes ago, J&B 5858 said:

Thanks for your input ... I'll try to be more patient. Thanks for your time.

No problem.  There are quite a few people here who do collect Morgans and that have a ton of knowledge that I'm sure could help you out.  However, I do have one concern on a second look.....I do think that the coin has been cleaned, so you'll be looking at a Details grade if you submit it to NGC. 

~Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts

It's the coloration and the abrasion of the coin......it just looks unnatural, like someone messed with it.  A lot of Morgan Dollars have been cleaned over the years.  It could also be artificial toning, where someone messed with it chemically to create the coloration of the coin.  But I think cleaned because it looks abraded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,593 posts
4 hours ago, J&B 5858 said:

Thanks for your input ... I'll try to be more patient. Thanks for your time.

That would be a really great idea.

It may come as a surprise to you that no one here gets paid to answer questions. If you do not get immediate gratification in response to a request for opinions, it doesn't mean that you have somehow offended people (though if you whine about it, you might do so). It may simply mean that people looked at the picture and did not have anything helpful to contribute, and rather than say anything unhelpful, they said nothing. Perhaps, just perhaps, not every single person here is an acclaimed expert on every single type or issue of coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173 posts
  1. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not authentic.  I may be completely wrong; the old eyes aren't as good as they were.
  2. Now here's one reason for my guess:  The mintmark.  Here is a pic of an authentic 1889 CC mint mark:
  3. And here is a 100% guaranteed fake 1989 CC reverse (Pic #2)
  4. As I said - I'm just guessing but a 1889 CC that nice and not slabbed?

1889-CC_VAM_2_Photo_2.jpg

1889R.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,655 posts

I can help but I usually wait till I get on my pc. I really hate phones.

It looks AT to me but as for genuineness I will reserve till I get home. 

Sorry for the delay in help ...it happens :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,587 posts
2 hours ago, Alex in PA. said:
  1. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not authentic.  I may be completely wrong; the old eyes aren't as good as they were.
  2. Now here's one reason for my guess:  The mintmark.  Here is a pic of an authentic 1889 CC mint mark:
  3. And here is a 100% guaranteed fake 1989 CC reverse (Pic #2)
  4. As I said - I'm just guessing but a 1889 CC that nice and not slabbed?

1889-CC_VAM_2_Photo_2.jpg

1889R.jpg

No sir I think you are incorrect. Totally legit CC. This Pic is from vamworld. http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/File:1889-CC_RonH_VAM-2A_REV_03042012a.jpg

 

1889-CC_RonH_VAM-2A_REV_03042012a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,655 posts

I agree too its real also has die clashes under all that color

Toning not to sure about though looks artificially toned to me.

Has a bunch of rim hits 

VF30 if able to be graded which I think it will not.

 

 

 

 

Edited by jgrinz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173 posts
11 hours ago, MAULEMALL said:

No sir I think you are incorrect. Totally legit CC. This Pic is from vamworld. http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/File:1889-CC_RonH_VAM-2A_REV_03042012a.jpg

 

1889-CC_RonH_VAM-2A_REV_03042012a.jpg

 

11 hours ago, MAULEMALL said:

No sir I think you are incorrect. Totally legit CC. This Pic is from vamworld. http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/File:1889-CC_RonH_VAM-2A_REV_03042012a.jpg

 

1889-CC_RonH_VAM-2A_REV_03042012a.jpg

And?

Edited by Alex in PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,587 posts
11 hours ago, Alex in PA. said:

 

And?

And you are wrong. Throwing out "it's not authentic" is pretty lazy IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173 posts
2 hours ago, MAULEMALL said:

And you are wrong. Throwing out "it's not authentic" is pretty lazy IMO.

Thank you very much for your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3