Home U.S. Coin Forum

Is this the one of the nicest MS62 Morgan ever?

ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 6,814 ✭✭✭✭✭

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.

Comments

  • 2windy2fish2windy2fish Posts: 850 ✭✭✭✭✭

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

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 4,389 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2, 2023 1:49PM

    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.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 11,765 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2, 2023 1:48PM

    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.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭✭✭

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

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin

  • U1chicagoU1chicago Posts: 6,432 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @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).

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 6,814 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2, 2023 2:03PM

    @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

  • Morgan13Morgan13 Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭✭✭

    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.

    Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
    Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
    Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7

  • mattnissmattniss Posts: 754 ✭✭✭✭

    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.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,532 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "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.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • david3142david3142 Posts: 3,583 ✭✭✭✭✭

    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.

  • coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭✭✭

    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.

  • KoveKove Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭✭

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

  • RobertScotLoverRobertScotLover Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2, 2023 7:16PM

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

  • FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 3,743 ✭✭✭✭✭

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

  • bsshog40bsshog40 Posts: 3,949 ✭✭✭✭✭

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

  • RLSnapperRLSnapper Posts: 582 ✭✭✭✭✭

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

  • joebb21joebb21 Posts: 4,762 ✭✭✭✭✭

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

    may the fonz be with you...always...
  • MoparmonsterMoparmonster Posts: 261 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • CalifornianKingCalifornianKing Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭✭

    @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

  • MICHAELDIXONMICHAELDIXON Posts: 6,568 ✭✭✭✭✭

    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.

    Spring National Battlefield Coin Show is April 3-5, 2025 at the Eisenhower Hotel Ballroom, Gettysburg, PA. WWW.AmericasCoinShows.com
  • coinhackcoinhack Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 6,814 ✭✭✭✭✭

    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.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,532 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @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.😉

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • marmacmarmac Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭

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

Leave a Comment

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