Hello folks. Could I get some opinions on this 84-S Morgan. Its PCGS graded AU details. Would you call it 53, 55 or 58 details? I appreciate the input. My pics dont capture the blazing luster and the reverse is almost fully prooflike. Thanks!
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Will’sProoflikes
@MFeld said:
Among the three choices given, I’d go with 53.
Of the three I agree, but I’m more inclined to agree with PCGS’s AU details determination.
Sorry for not having been clearer. I agree with the AU details grade, too. But I thought the OP was asking for opinions regarding the amount of wear on the AU details graded coin, as in 53 (details), 55 (details) or 58 (details).
“Would you call it 53, 55 or 58 details?”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I would go with AU55 details..... and I am taking into account the OP's descriptive information that is not readily apparent in the pictures. Cheers, RickO
The question I have is the details due to improper cleaning/dipping, wiped hairlines, something else? For a coin with little apparent wear, I would expect more luster and not just confined to the motto, legend, date,& stars.
I'll say AU55 Details as well. My first impression was that someone tried to dip it once too many times? I'm not seeing hairlines, but I am seeing sort of flat surfaces... It's an issue that's a conditional rarity in MS and the motivation to turn a nice AU coin into a 5-6 figure "gem" is overwhelming to some...
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
It's hard to say that a cleaned AU coin has a speciifc level of detail, since the remaining luster, which is important for establishing an AU grade, is impaired by the cleaning. Eye appeal is also important for AU, but only counts before the cleaning. I see enough wear on the coin that I can't see how it would have been an AU58 before being cleaned. AU53 is much more likely.
Manorcourtman
Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
From these two photos I would say AU58.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
53, outside chance of 55
Al
Among the three choices given, I’d go with 53.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
a 55
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
I can certainly see the ‘WHY’ of the details grade.
AU 55 seems right.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I would go with AU55 details.
Will’sProoflikes
AU55
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Long Time no see! Where have you been hiding???
Of the three I agree, but I’m more inclined to agree with PCGS’s AU details determination.
Sorry for not having been clearer. I agree with the AU details grade, too. But I thought the OP was asking for opinions regarding the amount of wear on the AU details graded coin, as in 53 (details), 55 (details) or 58 (details).
“Would you call it 53, 55 or 58 details?”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
55 details.
I would go with AU55 details..... and I am taking into account the OP's descriptive information that is not readily apparent in the pictures. Cheers, RickO
AU55 details.
I'd go with the AU55 details.
The question I have is the details due to improper cleaning/dipping, wiped hairlines, something else? For a coin with little apparent wear, I would expect more luster and not just confined to the motto, legend, date,& stars.
I'll say AU55 Details as well. My first impression was that someone tried to dip it once too many times? I'm not seeing hairlines, but I am seeing sort of flat surfaces... It's an issue that's a conditional rarity in MS and the motivation to turn a nice AU coin into a 5-6 figure "gem" is overwhelming to some...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
I would say 55 as well. Too bad it was cleaned.
AU details
My YouTube Channel
Like most on here, would say 55
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
It's hard to say that a cleaned AU coin has a speciifc level of detail, since the remaining luster, which is important for establishing an AU grade, is impaired by the cleaning. Eye appeal is also important for AU, but only counts before the cleaning. I see enough wear on the coin that I can't see how it would have been an AU58 before being cleaned. AU53 is much more likely.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution