Question about grading Frosty Morgans

[Deleted User]

I would like to have a clearer understanding of how to grade Morgan's in particular with "caked on lustre" for lack of a better term. Better term located, frosty.
Here us an example of a Morgan.
It looks clean to me with no serous marks or scratches but obvious " rub" against the lustre.
I'd like to know how that factors into grading when zeroing in on a raw coin purchase.
My thoughts are this is a 64 or maybe 65 but this is looking past the "rub". My thinking is that it's not bag marks or scratches. If I need to adjust my thinking I will keep an open mind.
I'd appreciate some information on this perspective of grading.
Thank you.

MS66

It's a contradiction in terms, as far as I'm concerned. Anything 'caked on' a coin will likely impede luster.

Mostly it means "we're an online coin warehouse please send us your money."

Shane6596

Im interested in this also

coinbuf

63 is probably in the ballpark, might be today's commercial 64. Very flashy and while no huge hits there are lots of grazes and I'm not real crazy about that area behind the cap. I'll bet it will not look so nice in hand.

FlyingAl

Personally, I’d call this more of “caked on” luster:

The term is also used for proofs with “caked on” frost, which is much more obvious to the eye I think. It shows as a thick white frost like this:

Often, it can be seen as a positive attribute of grading so long as it increases eye appeal. As to the coin in the OP, I grade it 62.

TomB

I've always termed the areas where there is break in the apparent frost as luster grazes. I view it as coin-to-coin contact within US Mint bags when seen on Morgan dollars. In my opinion, they are rather minor determinants when assigning a grade, but can be major factors when stating eye appeal or value.

I have taken the obverse image you supplied and outlined two larger areas of luster grazes so you can see what I am writing about.

davewesen

you do not see all the nicks and scrapes all over the face and fields? how do you define clean? my thoughts this is closer to 62

[Deleted User]

@TomB your answer is exactly what I am trying to understand. Does this make it a clean cheek?
Also I like your term better. I'll need to remember "frost".
Here are a couple of examples. These are in 64 one is in a PCGS holder and the other is in a NGC holder. They are not my coins so I cropped them out of their holders.
I'm trying to learn to grade.
I really do appreciate the intelligent responses and guidance.
They really do help me to absorb this information.
I set a benchmark and have it knocked down and that is okay it's intentional because that's how I see it through the frost. A nice clean cheek, maybe?
That is why I would prefer to make the mistake before I own the coin for $4500 or $10,000. Even if it's in a slab.

[Deleted User]

@FlyingAl said:
Personally, I’d call this more of “caked on” luster:

The term is also used for proofs with “caked on” frost, which is much more obvious to the eye I think. It shows as a thick white frost like this:

Often, it can be seen as a positive attribute of grading so long as it increases eye appeal. As to the coin in the OP, I grade it 62.

I cannot disagree with you. I also think the images are awful and don't do the coin justice.
With a $185 price tag its a decent purchase. If it's a 62 it will be perfect for my raw grade set.

ricko

Looking at the OP coin... I would grade that an MS62.... Could go 63 in hand. Cheers, RickO

coastaljerseyguy

Sometimes from photos hard to tell if a luster graze, as TomB mentioned above, due to all the contact with other coins in the mint bag vs luster breaks from lite handling/circulation. I've seen 1000 Morgan mint bags moved in the 60's and they were not handled gently and can assume as much back in the day from mint to banks. These 60lb bags were literally thrown around.

In hand a lot easier to distinguish the two and there was a good OP from someone about the white paper reflection test. I tried it and it does work for certain AU coins.

DollarAfterDollar

When a coin is minted with that level of luster bloom it instantly becomes more susceptible to the damages of contact with other coins within the bag. While those contact marks will certainly affect grade, their severity matters. Rubbing off a bit of luster is not always as detrimental as a serious scratch in the field or on the neck as shown on the 1880 O above.

dsessom

@Watchtower said:

My thoughts are this is a 64 or maybe 65 but this is looking past the "rub". My thinking is that it's not bag marks or scratches. If I need to adjust my thinking I will keep an open mind.
I'd appreciate some information on this perspective of grading.
Thank you.

That particular coin would not even merit a 63 unfortunately. It's a 62, mainly because of all the rubs across the face. This is the main focal area for most people, and the first thing I look at when inspecting a coin. There also seems to be a lot of chatter on the reverse fields, hairlines and maybe even PVC residue. It's hard to tell for sure, but that coin, in spite of the mint luster, has a lot of distractions.

I will attempt to show differences in grade using some of my own coins...

AU58

MS63

MS64

MS65

[Deleted User]

I really appreciate the discussion. I think I learned a few things.
Thank you.

winesteven

@Watchtower said:
@TomB your answer is exactly what I am trying to understand. Does this make it a clean cheek?….

I suggest you think in terms of “clean” or “clean cheek” in how it is for the grade! Here’s one of my recent pickups in a much higher grade (66+ w/CAC) that I feel has clean cheeks and fields, especially for the grade. But don’t expect to find coins with this “clean” look in grades 62 - 65:

Steve

[Deleted User]

@winesteven
That is a beautiful coin.
I totally get it and I appreciate it.
I learn a little bit everyday.