Home U.S. Coin Forum

Discuss the grade of this coin

orevilleoreville Posts: 11,950 ✭✭✭✭✭


Discuss why you selected your grade.

A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
«1

Comments

  • SmudgeSmudge Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭✭✭

    First place I look is the cheek. 65.

  • Married2CoinsMarried2Coins Posts: 483 ✭✭✭

    Not much to say. Full blazing luster, virtually no marks,exceptional eye appeal so I'll guess MS-67 by the ANA Grading Guide. It is a common date and Mint coin with nice color and eye appeal. Probably out of my price range.

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 3,700 ✭✭✭✭✭

    66+ if it were a white coin but with that color I could see 67.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • JimnightJimnight Posts: 10,846 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice looking coin! I would guess 67.

  • coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Very nice coin, a little chatter next to nose and lower jaw, so I'll go 65 or 65+.

  • mirabelamirabela Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭

    66+ gorgeous, streak on cheek limits it there

    mirabela
  • CoinscratchCoinscratch Posts: 8,637 ✭✭✭✭✭

    66+

  • VanHalenVanHalen Posts: 3,928 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's '79-S which puts the bar a touch higher (for me). I see a strong 66, shot 67. The strike is all there and the luster appears to be as well as can be discerned in images. Eyelash under 67 eye appeal with very minor scuffs/discoloration and a couple widely scattered tick marks. Could certainly see a 66+ if that grade was available. As '79-S Morgan's go? Not a solid 67.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,063 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sure it is a nice coin... likely 66... And there are easily somewhere between 10,000- 15,000 (and likely more) 1879-s Morgans that share this look and the grade.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • ChrisH821ChrisH821 Posts: 6,465 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm at 7 on it. I'm betting that mark on the cheek is a luster graze that disappears at a different angle.

    Collector, occasional seller

  • spyglassdesignspyglassdesign Posts: 1,620 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 21, 2024 3:31PM

    I am at the 66 club. The rough neck and cheek marks I think would be enough to just miss a 7. Photos make luster seem very good! Minimal marks in the fields too.

  • WalkerfanWalkerfan Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭✭✭

    65

    Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍

    My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):

    https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/

  • spyglassdesignspyglassdesign Posts: 1,620 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oreville said:

    @ChrisH821 said:
    I'm at 7 on it. I'm betting that mark on the cheek is a luster graze that disappears at a different angle.

    Indeed, CACG graded it as MS-67.

    I won this coin at a reasonable price.

    The large photo makes the coin look much worse than viewing it in person with a 5x echenbacker (sic) glass. I tried to pin down the luster graze on the cheek but such luster graze was not even visible unless you held it at certain crazy angle.

    That is the problem with trying to grade by photos.

    Yeah that is truly the difficulty. Great looking coin! If they aren't scratches and just a luster graze not readily visible in hand, then a 67 seems about right from what else I can see! I wanted to call it a 67 but those did look like hits on the cheek!

  • DisneyFanDisneyFan Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oreville said:

    @ChrisH821 said:
    I'm at 7 on it. I'm betting that mark on the cheek is a luster graze that disappears at a different angle.

    I took a chance on this auction lot fully expecting to return it.
    It's an auction and a CACG. How can you justify returning it?

  • anablepanablep Posts: 5,095 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice looking coin & deserving of a 67 grade.

    Always looking for attractive rim toned Morgan and Peace dollars in PCGS or (older) ANA/ANACS holders!

    "Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."


    ~Wayne
  • CryptoCrypto Posts: 3,673 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I almost called it a 67 just because GC took the time to photograph it. I decided to shoot as if it was eBay photos (all be it good ones)

  • VanHalenVanHalen Posts: 3,928 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oreville said:

    @ChrisH821 said:
    I'm at 7 on it. I'm betting that mark on the cheek is a luster graze that disappears at a different angle.

    Indeed, CACG graded it as MS-67.

    I won this coin at a reasonable price. I took a chance on this auction lot fully expecting to return it. I agree with the above comment that the bar for 1879-S to 1882-S to achieve a 67 grade is higher than for other dates/mm.

    The large photo makes the coin look much worse than viewing it in person with a 5x echenbacker (sic) glass. I was surprised that I I tried to pin down the luster graze on the cheek and the chin but such luster grazes were not even visible unless you held it at a certain crazy angle. I can then see why CACG gave it a 67 instead of a 63 to 65+.

    That is the problem with trying to grade by photos especially large photos.

    I have no issues with a 67 grade from someone who has actually viewed it in-hand. I noted (from GC) it is a L-legacy piece. By chance, do you know if it was NGC or PCGS? I assume the former slab was MS67? Things would get really interesting if was in an MS65 OH with Gold bean!

  • lermishlermish Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think that guy submitted it to GC bc bourse room players probably low balled heck out of him.

    I think that is definitely the most likely reason

    :|:D

    Nice pick up @oreville ! I would have been in the 66+ camp. Some day I hope you sell tickets so a few of us can spend a day with you in your SDB viewing room.

  • RobertScotLoverRobertScotLover Posts: 910 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 21, 2024 7:11PM

    Question to Oreville,
    why own such a piece?

  • ElcontadorElcontador Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The image is between 1/2 to one full stop overexposed. I try to look at a coin in hand or have a trusted friend do this. Too many times, the picture does not tell the story.

    "Vou invadir o Nordeste,
    "Seu cabra da peste,
    "Sou Mangueira......."
  • spyglassdesignspyglassdesign Posts: 1,620 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Married2Coins said:

    @Cougar1978 said:
    64, possibly 63. Don’t like the fatal x scratches on cheek. Unacceptable for investment.

    If it’s actually some higher grade on holder owner blowing it out (can’t sell it off bourse). Got stuffed in backfield.

    Probably a lot of them low balled heck out of him. Many would only offer only MS60 money. I would just pass. Yes a lot of us know how to grade and look at coins. You just can’t skip by on some technical grade lol.

    Did somebody try put their initials on it lol? Thinking 64 overly generous…for it.

    He who LOL last, LOL best. I wonder if the ANA Summer Seminar Grading 101 class is full.

    Agreed. Not even the Uber conservative cacg would call that a 3/4 by any stretch of the imagination. By that measure a 65 gem would be all but spot/mark free.

  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,950 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RobertScotLover said:
    Question to Oreville,
    why own such a piece?

    From the photo only, i would agree with you. From viewing it in person, it is a solid 67. Only one angle displays the slight luster grazes.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,950 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DisneyFan said:

    @oreville said:

    @ChrisH821 said:
    I'm at 7 on it. I'm betting that mark on the cheek is a luster graze that disappears at a different angle.

    I took a chance on this auction lot fully expecting to return it.
    It's an auction and a CACG. How can you justify returning it?

    Good question, i did notice that GC coins seem to look better in hand than from their large photos. I have a solid relationship with Ian Russell and if the coin did not meet my expectations I would have felt comfortable asserting my right to return it. .

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2024 2:26AM

    Great coin and thread!

    Here's the photo from Justin @jtlee321 along with the photo from @PhilArnold from the OP again.


  • DelawareDoonsDelawareDoons Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Coin looks like a 7. Only thing I don't like for a 7 is the scratch in front of the base of the neck you can see better in Justin's photos. But I can live with it.

    "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."

  • BustHalfBrianBustHalfBrian Posts: 4,161 ✭✭✭✭

    67 is a stretch with those abrasions on the cheek. I like this coin as an average 66. This date comes nice too, so there are plenty of other examples to choose from that are graded properly.

    Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist based in SoCal.
  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,950 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2024 5:41PM

    Th> @BustHalfBrian said:

    67 is a stretch with those abrasions on the cheek. I like this coin as an average 66. This date comes nice too, so there are plenty of other examples to choose from that are graded properly.

    The point of this thread is to show what a coin looks like using a 15x power glass which makes the coin look horrible.

    Normally a classic coin is evaluated using a no more than a 5x power glass. Moderns up to 10x power glass.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • NeophyteNumismatistNeophyteNumismatist Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Glad you are enjoying the coin.

    I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.

  • CoinscratchCoinscratch Posts: 8,637 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I imagine in hand this coin is a stunner and no way it only gets a 66. Remember 70 is perfect.

  • ExtremeengineerExtremeengineer Posts: 138 ✭✭✭

    I’m looking at the CAC photo, and just cannot grasp how that neck and cheek yielded a 67. It says 65 to me, and indeed, with that coloring mixed in I’d have been one of the lowballers offering 60 money, as that’s what it’d be worth to me. But if you are happy with it, and happy with what you spent on it, what the rest of us think is pretty irrelevant… till resale time lol

  • Morgan13Morgan13 Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm late to the party here but I would have graded 66+-67.
    Nice clean coin. Obviously luster and frosty devices.
    This one's a keeper.

    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

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,921 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Extremeengineer said:
    I’m looking at the CAC photo, and just cannot grasp how that neck and cheek yielded a 67. It says 65 to me, and indeed, with that coloring mixed in I’d have been one of the lowballers offering 60 money, as that’s what it’d be worth to me. But if you are happy with it, and happy with what you spent on it, what the rest of us think is pretty irrelevant… till resale time lol

    It says 65 to you but you'd offer 60 money... does that include to little old widows who are trying to pay for their meds?

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2024 3:23AM

    @oreville said:

    @BustHalfBrian said:
    67 is a stretch with those abrasions on the cheek. I like this coin as an average 66. This date comes nice too, so there are plenty of other examples to choose from that are graded properly.

    The point of this thread is to show what a coin looks like using a 15x power glass which makes the coin look horrible.

    Normally a classic coin is evaluated using a no more than a 5x power glass. Moderns up to 10x power glass.

    Good and informative post :+1:

    Should the two be more in sync with photo enlargement being equal to glass power?

  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 8,173 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2024 5:59AM

    Just don’t see it as a 67. The x thingy on cheek bothers me. Reminds me of a 64 I saw. Don’t care who or what graded it. There even looks like something going on in left obv field. Then the neck area has problems too.

    Have you shopped it around the bourse? See the L for Legacy perhaps some of them may go for it (but how far back of bid?). Extreme has a good point about when resale time comes. I think they will lowball heck outta it lol.

    Coins & Currency
  • CryptoCrypto Posts: 3,673 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not all marks are created equal. A frost rub is different than a bag scrape if if they look similar from an angle. I would be shocked if CAC was lucy goosey with 67s on Morgans when the standard is so established and practiced. I bet the glow in hand makes up for the few imperfections. It’s not a 70 after all

  • @jmlanzaf said:

    @Extremeengineer said:
    I’m looking at the CAC photo, and just cannot grasp how that neck and cheek yielded a 67. It says 65 to me, and indeed, with that coloring mixed in I’d have been one of the lowballers offering 60 money, as that’s what it’d be worth to me. But if you are happy with it, and happy with what you spent on it, what the rest of us think is pretty irrelevant… till resale time lol

    It says 65 to you but you'd offer 60 money... does that include to little old widows who are trying to pay for their meds?

    I would not be interested in that coin at 65 money irrespective of the owner or their medical standing. FOR ME that coin has horrible PQ, that was my point. For example I see these "Monster Toner" coins all of the time, and in addition to the fact that phrase is cringe worthy, usually what they are worth to me is much less than the grade regardless of the toning, let alone the to me outrageous toning premium. But to each their own, I was simply agreeing with the previous comments that on a bourse that coin would net lowball offers.

  • CoinscratchCoinscratch Posts: 8,637 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looking in coin facts this one has a large pop from 67 to 68+.
    Once you get down to the 67s you see a lot of cheek chatter and when the cheek is clean you find a weaker strike most of the time. There’s some opportunity in there as well.

    All 67s

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @ChrisH821 said:
    I'm at 7 on it. I'm betting that mark on the cheek is a luster graze that disappears at a different angle.

    @ChrisH821 said:
    I'm at 7 on it. I'm betting that mark on the cheek is a luster graze that disappears at a different angle.

    What is a luster graze exactly?

  • AngryTurtleAngryTurtle Posts: 1,565 ✭✭✭

    Before I saw the answer, I took a look at it and was quickly somewhere between 65 and 67. As pointed out by other posters, it all came down to how you weight the marks on the cheek. My grade was 66 from the photos. I can see a 67 if the photos overemphasize the cheek marks.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,401 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oreville said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @oreville said:

    @ChrisH821 said:
    I'm at 7 on it. I'm betting that mark on the cheek is a luster graze that disappears at a different angle.

    I took a chance on this auction lot fully expecting to return it.
    It's an auction and a CACG. How can you justify returning it?

    Good question, i did notice that GC coins seem to look better in hand than from their large photos. I have a solid relationship with Ian Russell and if the coin did not meet my expectations I would have felt comfortable asserting my right to return it. .

    There’s no way I’d buy a coin through auction “fully expecting to return it.”
    And that’s no matter how solid the relationship between myself and the auctioneer.
    It would be unfair to the consignor and there’s a good chance it would cost him money.

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

  • ElcontadorElcontador Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Zoins said:
    Great coin and thread!

    Here's the photo from Justin @jtlee321 along with the photo from @PhilArnold from the OP again.


    CAC photo is between 1/2 and a full stop underexposed. Something may be going on with the white balance as well. Picture settings seem a bit off. May want to change color saturation and change setting to vivid.

    Always look at the coin. If you can't, get someone you trust to look at it. Never buy from a pic. If so, you're buying sight unseen.

    "Vou invadir o Nordeste,
    "Seu cabra da peste,
    "Sou Mangueira......."
  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 28,271 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'll go 66 or a minimum of a 65, fwiw

Leave a Comment

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