Is this the one of the nicest MS62 Morgan ever?

ProofCollection

I'm astounded that this only MS62. Would expect at least a + on this one. I see a lot of 62's and they are usually pretty rough...

Please tear it apart, I'm curious why this would not be a 63. It must be the scratches on the face but they are pretty minor as far as scratches go, IMO. Maybe the chin? The fields are super clean. The luster is good.

2windy2fish

I believe it’s the cheek…if you zoom in the scratches almost look like graffiti…

PeakRarities

If I had to take a stab at it, I would venture to guess that muted luster has something to do with it.

Edit- just saw your last sentence about luster being good. In that case I’ll go with the cheek scratches.

coinbuf

I think it was netted down for the graffiti, there is an "X" both on the cheek and in the obv field right in front of the nose. The graders may have felt that both were not intentional but still could not overlook them.

Maywood

A question to the OP: is your opinion based on seeing the coin "in-hand" or merely on this image??

U1chicago

@coinbuf said:
I think it was netted down for the graffiti, there is an "X" both on the cheek and in the obv field right in front of the nose. The graders may have felt that both were not intentional but still could not overlook them.

I’m also guessing it’s that pair of “X” marks you mention. I had an MS 61 Morgan before that was somewhat similar (looked higher but was likely netted for a patch of marks in the field).

ProofCollection

@Maywood said:
A question to the OP: is your opinion based on seeing the coin "in-hand" or merely on this image??

In hand. It does have to marks, yes, but they do not visually distract like other 62's and are fairly minor. Seems like I've seen plenty of 63's with more marks than this. Here's a rougher MS62 that I'd compare to:

And here's an MS63:
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/34670016

Morgan13

From looking at those scratches I am surprised it didn't get a details grade. I don't mean to sound abrasive but the scratches are there.

mattniss

Those two graffiti-esque X's are likely the primary culprits for the grade, but coin also seems exceptionally lightly struck -- which could potentially be am additional factor. You can see this the most from the relatively flat rubbing on the hair above the ear and the poorly defined breast feathers. Compare yours to the 62 you shared.

MFeld

"Is this the one of the nicest MS62 Morgan ever?"

Odds are very strongly against it. I'd bet that if you look objectively at enough coins and images, you'll see plenty of MS62 (and even MS61) examples that look as good or better.

david3142

I agree that still looks better than most 62s but the date/MM is also a factor. 1896-O is a major condition rarity and they are really tough on these. My 1896-O is even cleaner than that one and it’s also only a 62. Same is true for my 1886-O.

coastaljerseyguy

Agree its the scratches and the date/MM. If they were parallel wouldn't be as bad but an 'X', even if unintentional, is very noticeable and a distraction. Lucky for the 62, close to a details grade.

Kove

My immediate thought was subdued obverse luster and stuff going on with the cheek.

RobertScotLover

Honestly there is nothing about this $1 that attracts me. Astonished the that it even slabbed.

FlyingAl

I'd say the muted luster strongly impacted the grade.

bsshog40

I agree with others that the X's was the culprit for a low grade. Circulation marks are usually treated better than graffiti marks.

RLSnapper

I would be happy it straight graded. The X on the cheek looks intentional. The graders took pity on an otherwise attractive coin.

joebb21

Not withstanding the scratches, to me the coin looks like it could have gone au58 as well.

Moparmonster

This is the nicest MS62 Morgan ever…

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cwsp4WqxYsq/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

CalifornianKing

@2windy2fish said:
I believe it’s the cheek…if you zoom in the scratches almost look like graffiti…

That and the X next to the obverse

MICHAELDIXON

It is always hard to grade by a picture. But...I agree with others that the scratches on the cheek (prime focal area) kept it from grading higher. To me, from the picture, it looks like it was 'thumbed' in order to try to hide the cheek marks.

coinhack

@joebb21 said:
Not withstanding the scratches, to me the coin looks like it could have gone au58 as well.

I agree with joebb21. In the enlarged photo you can see very light wear and luster breaks on both sides. This would also account for the muted luster. This coin did not circulate for long but most likely long enough to pick up the scratches, exes, and such.

ProofCollection

Thanks guys for all of the feedback. A few notes and responses:

• The title was a little click baity, I don't really think this is the best 62ever but I do think that as far as 62s go,this one is pretty nice. They can be pretty rough in this grade.
• I do not think this is more than a 62+. But I do think without the scratches and Mark on the chin it would be a 64.
• You guys see signs of wear on every coin that gets posted and think they are AU. I trust PCGS assessment that it is not AU.
• The coin looks more lustrous in person but it definitely has a golden tinge. A quick dip in e-zest would probably bring it all back but I'm not planning to crack it out. I think PCGS would decline resto but better luster might put it over the top for a +.

Thank you all again for the feedback. It is always informative to see what others see.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:
Thanks guys for all of the feedback. A few notes and responses:

• The title was a little click baity, I don't really think this is the best 62ever but I do think that as far as 62s go,this one is pretty nice. They can be pretty rough in this grade.
• I do not think this is more than a 62+. But I do think without the scratches and Mark on the chin it would be a 64.
• You guys see signs of wear on every coin that gets posted and think they are AU. I trust PCGS assessment that it is not AU.
• The coin looks more lustrous in person but it definitely has a golden tinge. A quick dip in e-zest would probably bring it all back but I'm not planning to crack it out. I think PCGS would decline resto but better luster might put it over the top for a +.

Thank you all again for the feedback. It is always informative to see what others see.

Based on the replies, some posters think your coin is one such example of “They can be pretty rough in this grade.”

While you “think without the scratches and Mark on the chin it would be a 64” many coins would grade two (or even more) points higher than their current grades, but for one or more flaws that they happen to have.

And it’s ridiculous to state “You guys see signs of wear on every coin that gets posted and think they are AU”.

Other than the above, I don’t have any major disagreements with your post.😉

marmac

I'm guessing images of that coin at a different angle might make the grade of 62 a bit generous.