Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

GTG and what's special?

Not in one of the top tier slabs. Wondering if slab grade is accurate, and/or if it would cross to PCGS/NGC or even upgrade. One can hope!

Would like to know what you think the grade should be, and what might be special about this coin (slab has an "attribute" listed).


Rocking my "shiny-object-syndrome"!!!

Comments

  • Options
    braddickbraddick Posts: 23,122 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wonderful photography.
    Looks fully GEM.

    peacockcoins

  • Options
    Eric_BabulaEric_Babula Posts: 413 ✭✭✭✭

    @braddick said:
    Wonderful photography.
    Looks fully GEM.

    Thanks, but that was a test pic. I have been told I have to work on my lighting and depth of field focus. And, I will do that - I think I'd like to learn more about coin photography. I just bought a used copy Numismatic Photography, by Mark Goodman, and am waiting on its arrival. Hope to have even better pics in the future!

    So, your guess is MS-65? Thanks.

    Rocking my "shiny-object-syndrome"!!!

  • Options
    HallcoHallco Posts: 3,627 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm going to guess it's graded 66. No idea if it will cross. It is attributed as one of the "Spiked 8" Vams?

  • Options
    pursuitoflibertypursuitofliberty Posts: 6,593 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That drift mark in the headband might hold it back a little, but if those pictures aren't hiding anything, that looks like an easy 66 or better IMO.


    “We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”

    Todd - BHNC #242
  • Options
    braddickbraddick Posts: 23,122 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Eric_Babula said:

    @braddick said:
    Wonderful photography.
    Looks fully GEM.

    So, your guess is MS-65? Thanks.

    MS65 perhaps MS66.
    A Superb GEM would be MS67.
    Of which, without the grazing above LIBERTY I think it would be.

    peacockcoins

  • Options
    privatecoinprivatecoin Posts: 3,190 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd guess at 65

    Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc

  • Options
    TomBTomB Posts: 20,733 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like an obverse lamination in the bonnet.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • Options
    Eric_BabulaEric_Babula Posts: 413 ✭✭✭✭

    @TomB said:
    Looks like an obverse lamination in the bonnet.

    Ding. Ding. Ding! You got it! That's what's "special". Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Would that downgrade the coin?

    Rocking my "shiny-object-syndrome"!!!

  • Options
    gumby1234gumby1234 Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks 67 to me. No idea on a VAM or special attribute.

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

  • Options
    TomBTomB Posts: 20,733 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Eric_Babula said:

    @TomB said:
    Looks like an obverse lamination in the bonnet.

    Ding. Ding. Ding! You got it! That's what's "special". Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Would that downgrade the coin?

    Lots of folks would avoid a coin with a lamination like that while others would pay more for it. If this were a common WLH or Wheat cent I would think it would be less liquid, but since it's a Morgan I would suspect you might find demand for the coin. I don't believe it would have any affect on the grade.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • Options
    1madman1madman Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I actually think the ugly brown toning distracts from the beauty of the coin. I would consider a conservation. MS65 in its current condition

  • Options
    Eric_BabulaEric_Babula Posts: 413 ✭✭✭✭

    @gumby1234 said:
    Looks 67 to me. No idea on a VAM or special attribute.

    I've been told it's probably a VAM-1A. After looking it up, I tend to agree. But, I'm not a VAM expert........yet.

    Rocking my "shiny-object-syndrome"!!!

  • Options
    braddickbraddick Posts: 23,122 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TomB said:

    @Eric_Babula said:

    @TomB said:
    Looks like an obverse lamination in the bonnet.

    Ding. Ding. Ding! You got it! That's what's "special". Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Would that downgrade the coin?

    Lots of folks would avoid a coin with a lamination like that while others would pay more for it. If this were a common WLH or Wheat cent I would think it would be less liquid, but since it's a Morgan I would suspect you might find demand for the coin. I don't believe it would have any affect on the grade.

    Although I would normally agree, when it comes to MS67 Morgans I think the average collector is seeking a coin that doesn't offer distractions, even if mint-caused.

    peacockcoins

  • Options
    rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice coin, but the issue with the lamination would put me off..... There are those who seek such coins though... Cheers, RickO

  • Options
    jtlee321jtlee321 Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That brown spot appears to be a spot of slag rather than a lamination. A lamination would be detaching. I've seen lots of Morgan Dollars with those brown spots. They are spots of impure metal on the surface that were stretched out in the rolling process of creating the bar stock. They are thin enough and are right on the surface that they don't peal away.

    The grade looks like it could be an easy 66 shot 67, but the slag holds back on the eye appeal. Very lovely looking Morgan otherwise.

  • Options
    coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 10,769 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That brownish tone looks like a lot of dip residue, improperly rinsed after it was dipped years ago. I cannot tell if that area on the obv is truly a lamination or as Justin opined a slag spot. But from my perspective both of these are negatives in the eye appeal area and hold the grade at MS64.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • Options
    dsessomdsessom Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1madman said:
    I actually think the ugly brown toning distracts from the beauty of the coin. I would consider a conservation. MS65 in its current condition

    Personally, I like that type of toning and prefer it over "rainbow" toned examples. Although the 1881-S is a very common date, it's a super clean coin and some weirdo's like me like the look of album toned coins. It looks easily MS65, possible 66.

  • Options
    logger7logger7 Posts: 8,091 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2023 11:22AM

    Nice coin, around gem. Errors like that are not a plus for me.

  • Options
    lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,466 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jtlee321 said:
    That brown spot appears to be a spot of slag rather than a lamination. A lamination would be detaching. I've seen lots of Morgan Dollars with those brown spots. They are spots of impure metal on the surface that were stretched out in the rolling process of creating the bar stock. They are thin enough and are right on the surface that they don't peal away.

    That is what I thought when I first saw it. Although I have been told other methods but similar. I always referred to them as grease spots / streaks which may not be correct but worked out okay. They are a little hard to look up and find but I remembered this one I had in my set. It was only a MS63 but even at that some Morgan people would flip it over and see it and give that funky look and touch the slab like No No. :)

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • Options
    FredWeinbergFredWeinberg Posts: 5,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like it might be more of an improper metal mixture than an actual lamination

    Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors
    for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
  • Options
    291fifth291fifth Posts: 23,944 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Whatever that black mark on the obverse actually is it is a negative. Being on a very common coin like the 1881-S does not help matters. I would not want the coin.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • Options
    dhikewhitneydhikewhitney Posts: 364 ✭✭✭

    MS65

  • Options
    Eric_BabulaEric_Babula Posts: 413 ✭✭✭✭

    Ok, it's been long enough. Here's the coin in the slab. Any different thoughts/comments, now that you see it in the holder? It's in a PCI OGH, which many of these would cross at least at the grade PCI had it.

    But for the planchet flaw, I feel like this coin could cross to PCGS or NGC at least at MS-65, or maybe MS-66. But, I'm no expert. The big question is: would it even be worth it to try?

    Rocking my "shiny-object-syndrome"!!!

  • Options
    coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 10,769 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I personally do not think it will cross at grade, but if I were to try it would only be at PCGS. The reason I would not use NGC is that NGC will only cross PCGS coins, all other coins must be raw, at least with PCGS if you only accept cross at grade or higher you will not lose the old holder should it not.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.

Leave a Comment

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