Home U.S. Coin Forum

My Morgan Collection Part 13 (1891-S - 1892-S)

david3142david3142 Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

On to box 4!

The 1891-S, like the 1890-S, is a better date, but wow do they come flashy. They are pretty easy to locate with or without mirrors but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a nicely toned one. The coin below has outstanding eye appeal, flashy bowl luster like an 82-S, and (I think) a pretty good shot at DMPL.

1891-S MS64PL

The 1892 is a tough date, especially with mirrors. Like the other Morgans between 1892 and 1895, nicely toned coins are virtually unknown. Mine is typical for the date as PL or DMPL coins don’t exhibit much contrast but it is quite clean for the grade.

1892 MS64PL

The 1892-CC is an expensive coin, and most are low MS, especially the mirrored ones. Like some other dates there is very little premium on PL examples. They are more than 10 times rarer but I guess there are enough to meet the demand. Mine just misses the designation on the obverse but the reverse is there.

1892-CC MS63

The 1892-O gets my vote for the worst struck Morgan in the entire series. These are frequently encountered up to MS64 with good luster, but I really wanted to find one with a strong strike. I dislike the flat hair over the ear, and such weak strikes are often plagued by roller marks that didn’t get struck out. It took quite a bit of searching but I am thrilled with this one. It looks clean enough to be a 65 and you almost never see breast feathers like this on a 92-O.

1892-O MS64

The 92-S is one of the keys to the series. It is readily available in circulated grades but prices begin to skyrocket in AU and MS examples are extremely rare (only 75 such certifications at PCGS), just twice the population of the famed 93-S. Most AU examples I have seen have been quite unattractive so I had no desire to pay 4x XF money for just a 50 (or significantly more for anything higher). Mine falls just below that level but it was a relative bargain and it has a great original look, with quite a bit of luster on the reverse.

1892-S VF35

Thanks again for reading and for the encouragement. Let’s see some 1891-92 Morgans of your own!

Tagged:

Comments

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @david3142 .... Another great installment of your Morgan collection. That '92 O is a real beauty.... Cheers, RickO

  • ifthevamzarockinifthevamzarockin Posts: 8,001 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Another sweet group of coins. :)

  • messydeskmessydesk Posts: 19,466 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice group! 92-O is probably the worst pancake issue, but there are some that are well struck. VAM 5, which is a Top 100 variety with a doubled ear, shows up with a good strike. Of course, you might not be able to see the doubled ear on pancakes.

  • david3142david3142 Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @messydesk said:
    Nice group! 92-O is probably the worst pancake issue, but there are some that are well struck. VAM 5, which is a Top 100 variety with a doubled ear, shows up with a good strike. Of course, you might not be able to see the doubled ear on pancakes.

    Thank you for that extra bit of info! I suppose there are two different ways to categorize the strikes per date - most frequently encountered weakly struck and hardest to find strongly struck. I think we agree the 92-O takes the cake for the former but perhaps not the latter?

  • messydeskmessydesk Posts: 19,466 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @david3142 said:

    @messydesk said:
    Nice group! 92-O is probably the worst pancake issue, but there are some that are well struck. VAM 5, which is a Top 100 variety with a doubled ear, shows up with a good strike. Of course, you might not be able to see the doubled ear on pancakes.

    Thank you for that extra bit of info! I suppose there are two different ways to categorize the strikes per date - most frequently encountered weakly struck and hardest to find strongly struck. I think we agree the 92-O takes the cake for the former but perhaps not the latter?

    Correct. 02-O might be harder to find fully struck, even if only by virtue of the fact that there is such a huge population of lousy strikes out there. Some will say that 21-S fits the bill, too, but here the issue is not strike but die wear. Finding a sharply struck 21-S might be harder than finding a well struck 92-O.

  • CatbertCatbert Posts: 6,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Really like your thinking in the 92-S. For so many in our hobby (see registry) it’s all about the grade level.

    "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
  • ashelandasheland Posts: 22,196 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Awesome coins!

  • gumby1234gumby1234 Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Another nice group

    Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM

  • WAYNEASWAYNEAS Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks for sharing.
    Love the PL's.
    Very nice pictures.
    Wayne

    Kennedys are my quest...

  • coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,113 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Great looking coins and photos as usual, and key info on each date/mintage to boot.

    I have the 'not as good looking' sisters as your VAM 5D 91-S (key marker the tops of N & I in United are missing from die polishing) and 92-S. Your 92-s looks like a XF40 as I think mine is a VF35. My 91-S is an MS63PL.
    Also good info from others on the 92-O VAM 5 Doubled Ear strike. I didn't realized I bot one on EBAY until I got interested in VAMs. Even though this one is an XF45, I can see that it did have a strong strike compared to other 92-Os.




  • david3142david3142 Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coastaljerseyguy said:
    Great looking coins and photos as usual, and key info on each date/mintage to boot.

    I have the 'not as good looking' sisters as your VAM 5D 91-S (key marker the tops of N & I in United are missing from die polishing) and 92-S. Your 92-s looks like a XF40 as I think mine is a VF35. My 91-S is an MS63PL.
    Also good info from others on the 92-O VAM 5 Doubled Ear strike. I didn't realized I bot one on EBAY until I got interested in VAMs. Even though this one is an XF45, I can see that it did have a strong strike compared to other 92-Os.




    Thank you very much for sharing your nice coins! I didn’t notice the VAM variety for the 91-S. That’s neat to see. I have the encyclopedia and I used to try to attribute all my Morgans but I stopped about 17 years ago and just tried to focus on eye appeal. How many Morgans do you have in your raw albums?

  • csdotcsdot Posts: 654 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2021 6:14PM

    Nice coins.

    What is going on around the mint mark on the 92-CC? Lighting, reflection, glare, toning, planchet error, or is it an actual abrasion on the coin?

  • david3142david3142 Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @csdot said:

    Nice coins.

    What is going on around the mint mark on the 92-CC? Lighting, reflection, glare, toning, planchet error, or is it an actual abrasion on the coin?

    I do have some other coins with a similar feature where the coin is not PL for a tiny patch but this is probably the most obvious one. It appears to be a little area that they just missed when preparing the die, although you do see die polish lines in that area. Perhaps there was some frost applied to that area by mistake rather than just the devices?

  • csdotcsdot Posts: 654 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2021 7:21PM

    @david3142 said:

    @csdot said:

    Nice coins.

    What is going on around the mint mark on the 92-CC? Lighting, reflection, glare, toning, planchet error, or is it an actual abrasion on the coin?

    I do have some other coins with a similar feature where the coin is not PL for a tiny patch but this is probably the most obvious one. It appears to be a little area that they just missed when preparing the die, although you do see die polish lines in that area. Perhaps there was some frost applied to that area by mistake rather than just the devices?

    Almost looks crystalline. Gives it character. B)

  • coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,113 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @david3142 said:

    @coastaljerseyguy said:
    Great looking coins and photos as usual, and key info on each date/mintage to boot.

    I have the 'not as good looking' sisters as your VAM 5D 91-S (key marker the tops of N & I in United are missing from die polishing) and 92-S. Your 92-s looks like a XF40 as I think mine is a VF35. My 91-S is an MS63PL.
    Also good info from others on the 92-O VAM 5 Doubled Ear strike. I didn't realized I bot one on EBAY until I got interested in VAMs. Even though this one is an XF45, I can see that it did have a strong strike compared to other 92-Os.




    Thank you very much for sharing your nice coins! I didn’t notice the VAM variety for the 91-S. That’s neat to see. I have the encyclopedia and I used to try to attribute all my Morgans but I stopped about 17 years ago and just tried to focus on eye appeal. How many Morgans do you have in your raw albums?

    I filled the Dansco albums except I couldn't bring myself to break out the 81CC and 85CC since I had those in GSA slabs. All other holes filled. Included the 78 P varieties, 8TF, 7/8, Rev 78 & 79 as well as the 82 O/S, 1900 O/CC and 91-O "E". About half I bot raw and the other half broke out of their slabs, none higher than MS63.

    I actually had 95% in slabs also, and an LOC album 90% filled with my triplicates. I love Morgans, had about 350 Morgans at 1 time when I had expendable funds. Unfortunately had to sell most (most slabs and the LOC) to fund son's education.

  • littlebearlittlebear Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭✭

    Nice! Thank you for sharing!

    Autism Awareness: There is no limit to the good you can do, if you don't care who gets the credit.
  • kazkaz Posts: 9,012 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks for another great thread, and good images of your coins. You clearly put a lot of thought into your acquisitions.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file