1894 o flatly struck Morgan

General discussion board about VAMs, but no buy/sell offers
Post Reply
collectinsince65
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:55 am

1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by collectinsince65 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:56 pm

Good morning all
Wondering what you all thought of this one?
Reeding on it is smooth at a point or two and spaced wider at a point or two
Reverse strike seems to be softer than the obverse

Mike
1894 o rev 2.jpg
1894 o rev 2.jpg (154.93 KiB) Viewed 114 times
1894 o obv 2.jpg
1894 o obv 2.jpg (153.85 KiB) Viewed 114 times
1894 o rev crop.jpg
1894 o rev crop.jpg (93.8 KiB) Viewed 114 times

User avatar
CascadeChris
Posts: 1968
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:41 pm

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by CascadeChris » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:05 pm

I'll go with environmental damage.
Alonzi VW 2.0!

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 1648
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by messydesk » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:18 pm

I would file that under "Questionable Authenticity."
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

DHalladay
Posts: 1198
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by DHalladay » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:30 pm

messydesk wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:18 pm
I would file that under "Questionable Authenticity."

Ditto.
When in doubt... don't.

User avatar
Longstrider
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:12 pm
Location: Mojave High Desert

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by Longstrider » Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:27 pm

Bad counterfeit?

User avatar
CascadeChris
Posts: 1968
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:41 pm

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by CascadeChris » Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:34 pm

messydesk wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:18 pm
I would file that under "Questionable Authenticity."
You see it as bad rather than just a common 94o that has been evenly slicked from dryer/water erosion over time/acid/ etc JB?
Alonzi VW 2.0!

collectinsince65
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:55 am

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by collectinsince65 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:46 pm

Thanks John and Dennis.
Kinda what I was thinking.
Chris may be also correct.
It does pass the ring test.
Detail (or lack of detail in the feathers) on the back of the eagles neck caught my eye.
Doesn't really match a c3 reverse?
Very smooth and without definition.
Does not have any of vam 13 pups

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 1648
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by messydesk » Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:23 pm

CascadeChris wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:34 pm
messydesk wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:18 pm
I would file that under "Questionable Authenticity."
You see it as bad rather than just a common 94o that has been evenly slicked from dryer/water erosion over time/acid/ etc JB?
The amount of rough detail (wreath, cotton leaves, hair) remaining is consistent with an AU coin. It would be rather unfortunate had someone trashed a nice AU 94-O to the point of not having any detail on the eagle's head and no fine feathers visible. The Brillo+acid explanation did cross my mind, but it's so far gone that it's hard to verify that it's real.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

User avatar
vampicker
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:48 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by vampicker » Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:42 pm

So this is most likely genuine, but it's been hit with a buffer wheel or something like that. Whatever they were after, they got it and then some. If it came to me I'd bag with a stock comment about being unable to determine authenticity due to no original surfaces remaining, etc, etc....
often the crusher of hopes and dreams

jgrinz
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:50 pm

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by jgrinz » Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:52 pm

I think it is real
Probably heavily contaminated with corrosion and someone "hit" it with all they could to get
it nice and clean :-) even though it cost some silver content.
Weighing this puppy would be interesting note ... very lite I would think
Image

fogie
Posts: 469
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 9:45 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: 1894 o flatly struck Morgan

Post by fogie » Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:38 pm

I would stay away from it. Even in the unlikely event it is real.

Post Reply