This coin blows my mind

Morgan13

I was just looking through a box of Morgan's. I haven't posted anything in a while so I wanted to share this with whoever interested.
I did a guess the grade a while back.
I cannot believe this coin graded an MS65.
It looks like a 66 maybe a 66+. It's super clean everywhere. Nothing hiding. Awesome cheek.

braddick

The oversized Trueview shows some rim blemishes and I suppose that might have been taken into account when determining the grade.
Otherwise, I agree with you. It is an outstanding coin for the MS65 grade and does look better.

U1chicago

Looks better than a 65 from the photo to me as well.

golden

I think the rim issues holds it back.

Connecticoin

Looks like they may have "net" graded it for the rim bump at 2:00 on the reverse

jerseycat101

I am not usually a proponent of dipping coins, but this coin has a layer of haze which I think contributes negatively to it, and could be holding it back.

logger7

They see so many of these in the common dates, the coin really has to be all there to get a high grade.

Morgan13

Just for comparison sake-

jesbroken

Is it for sale at MS65 pricing? If so, where and I will purchase it immediately.
Jim

braddick

It is neat to compare these with other 1885-O Morgans PCGS has graded:

Here are the responses to your GTG on this Morgan dollar. It appears most agree with you!

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1097575/1885-o-morgan-gtg-revealed/p1

anablep

Maybe the luster isn't there for a 66 or + but I can't imagine the reverse rim ding is holding it back, unless the TV is hiding its severity.

david3142

@logger7 said:
They see so many of these in the common dates, the coin really has to be all there to get a high grade.

I don’t believe that’s true. It also doesn’t make sense from a guarantee perspective. Compare a typical common date against a 92-S or 93-S in the same grade. The key dates will very likely be nicer. I agree that this doesn’t seem to be true with absolute rarities (think 1804 dollars or 1870-S $3) that seem to be liberally given straight-grade passes or overgraded though. Of course, in those cases the absolute grade doesn’t really matter, only the relative ranking.

There are just so many more common dates that there will be outliers high and low.

TorinoCobra71

...and such a SOLID STRIKE, ESP. for a NAWLINS mint specimen.......

TC71

Tibor

Would it be a candidate for a regrade.

EastonCollection

it doesn't have the 66 luster look. I see some dark spots on the reverse bottom rim that might mean a prior dipping hence not the booming luster that I would want for a 66. Again seeing the coin in hand might change my mind.

LeeBone

I like it as a 66 for the Date/MM

Edited to add: Sell it to me

Connecticoin

@anablep said:
Maybe the luster isn't there for a 66 or + but I can't imagine the reverse rim ding is holding it back, unless the TV is hiding its severity.

I have had coins bodybagged for rim dings like that.

erscolo

People always want a higher grade than what they get, seems to me that is why there are third party graders. MS65 it is.

RobertScotLover

BTW how do you know that this coin has been previously dipped, check out the dirt in the denticles at 5:30 on the reverse, they couldn't get it out or they missed it during the wash

Morgan13

This coin has pristine surfaces. Nice original fields and frost devices.
I would be honest and admit a problem if I saw it.
I do not belive this coin has ever been dipped.
I think the true view image really answers many questions.

Dropdaflag

WOW! Judging by the TV, nice coin, should be a 66 or higher. A lot of the 66 Morgans I have seen do not look as good.

ChrisH821

Crack it out and send it in again. That's what I would do if I thought I had an under-graded coin.

airplanenut

Clean cheek? Yes. But it also has a big fingerprint below the bust (first thing I saw), some bumps on the rim at 2:00 on both sides, and the fields look a bit hazy, but my read of the photos doesn't say it's necessarily an original skin. There is faint toning inside the rim on part of the obverse and then deep color between just a few dentils on the reverse; I wouldn't be surprised if the coin was dipped and that color came later. I'd rather see it in hand, but I can certainly see reasons for limiting the grade, and the fingerprint especially makes it a coin I'd pass on.

RobertScotLover

@Morgan13 said:
This coin has pristine surfaces. Nice original fields and frost devices.
I would be honest and admit a problem if I saw it.
I do not belive this coin has ever been dipped.
I think the true view image really answers many questions.

You just cannot attest to its originality since you haven't had it since it was minted. You need to understand that fact, then add the second fact that there is black between the denticles at 5:30 on the reverse and that proves that black was removed by somebody over the years. The only way to safely remove it is via a dip. Then lastly add the fact that there is the remenents of a finger print at 5:00 on the obv showing the surfaces have been mishandled and either the dip removed some or the print or it toned after the dip, either way that nullifies the pristine surfaces too.
The above proves that the coin isn't original with pristine surfaces.
That being said it is still a nice high grade example but one can also see that ownership adds a point and owners see what they want to see and don't see what they don't want to see.
Some would not want this piece because of the above and wait for an example that doesn't have these issues and some would be fine with it.

Morgan13

Super clean cameo on a semi prooflike coin. That's what I love about this coin. Thanks for all the feedback. You guys are awesome. That's why I enjoy this forum!
I have no plans to sell it or sending it in for reconsideration. The eye appeal is awesome. So I will enjoy this coin for what it is.
It's a common date.
Love that cheek.