Help: 1893 Morgan Strike Through or Scratch?

johnny010

I guess even in a Rattler there could have been a mistake, but wanted some professional opinions first please. Scratched or struck through?

FredWeinberg

That’s a scratch on the reverse

johnny010

@FredWeinberg said:
That’s a scratch on the reverse

Thank you very much. Guess PCGS missed it even back in the day.

PeakRarities

@johnny010 said:

@FredWeinberg said:
That’s a scratch on the reverse

Thank you very much. Guess PCGS missed it even back in the day.

@johnny010 said:

@FredWeinberg said:
That’s a scratch on the reverse

Thank you very much. Guess PCGS missed it even back in the day.

I don’t know how the heck that got straight graded the first time. Interesting to see in a rattler.

alaura22

OR
They gave it a free pass!
Check out my thread here
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1097033/would-like-some-opinions-on-this-not-my-coin#latest
This is the problem I'm having with TPG, they seem to give a pass on some high value coins.

gumby1234

Looks like a staple scratch and should be a details coin.

asheland

Dang. I didn’t expect that.

coinbuf

The coin looks gem, other than that mark, either it was considered as a strike thru, or it was net graded but not body bagged as it would have been back then.

airplanenut

@FredWeinberg said:
That’s a scratch on the reverse

I'd expect to see more metal raised along the edges, and for them to appear a bit more jagged, if it were a scratch, plus potentially a bit of sloping at either end where whatever caused it started and ended digging into the surface. The little offshoot piece at the top left looks shallower and similarly clean.

fathom

Damage. Scrape.

PeakRarities

@airplanenut said:

@FredWeinberg said:
That’s a scratch on the reverse

I'd expect to see more metal raised along the edges, and for them to appear a bit more jagged, if it were a scratch, plus potentially a bit of sloping at either end where whatever caused it started and ended digging into the surface. The little offshoot piece at the top left looks shallower and similarly clean.

When Johnny originally asked me I thought that the little offshoot piece looked like a strikethrough, but the big one looked like a gouge. Knowing how they were conservative back then, I was very surprised to see it with a grade. I suppose they might have netted it, but the coin looks like a ms64 otherwise.

vplite99

A staple. A shame.

BryceM

No, the graders saw it. It's probably not fresh. Broad and wide, somewhere between hit and scratch. Not a typical sharp, deep staple-scratch. Probably doesn't glint in the light, attracting attention like most sharp staple gouges. Not in a focal area, and the reason it's in a 63 holder instead of a 64 holder.

To me, the stuff on the cheek jumps out more to my eye, but different people notice different stuff.

There's a reason this one is still in a rattler, and contrary to popular opinion, not all rattlers were under-graded.

PeakRarities

You guys really think it was a staple? Seems like a pretty wide and deep mark...

Morgan13

I was trying to view it with the opinion that it is a strike through.
However, the small scratch on the denticle puts it to rest for me.
It's a scratch unfortunately IMHO.
Otherwise it's a really nice white coin.

gumby1234

@DeplorableDan it looks exactly like an accidental staple scratch that I put on an 1886 S Morgan years ago. Since then I dont mess around with staples. Flat stapler and I cut the cellophane on 2x2's to get the coins out.

RobertScotLover

Obvious gouge

alaura22

@DeplorableDan said:
You guys really think it was a staple? Seems like a pretty wide and deep mark...

I'm with you Dan, much too wide to be a staple scratch, more like a gouge. I passed on a similar coin with almost the identical gouge