Grade this 1891 S Morgan?

Spartcom5

I bought this Morgan recently. It came in an old coin holder with an old label that said it was MS 64 and they had it priced at $450. There is no way it is MS 64! In my opinion I think it is MS 62 or 63 possibly? Am I close? Any input is appreciated!! Hope my photos are fine, it's been awhile since I've photographed a coin!

7Jaguars

OK, I'll bite at 63 with the usual caveats....

johnny010

62 would be fine.

ChrisH821

63-ish

jfriedm56

Could be a 64. Was it graded by one of the 3 top grading companies or just guesstimated. Strike is nice, but surfaces look a bit mottled. So I will say 63.

[Deleted User]

Based on the photos I like it at 63.

BillJones

MS-62 became the frost is broken on the eagle’s breast feathers on the reverse.

coastaljerseyguy

From photo easily a 63.

coinkat

Not a bad looking coin-63 seems reasonable

pursuitofliberty

That coin looks like a nice 63 if I am reading the images correctly. Looks like really nice frost

blitzdude

MS63, and I have seen worse in MS64 holders with silly little stickers. RGDS!

MFeld

@blitzdude said:
MS63, and I have seen worse in MS64 holders with silly little stickers. RGDS!

And your anti-CAC obsession continues. It's sad.

EastonCollection

I like it as a 62 - maybe if I see it in hand it could be a 63 with extra eye appeal.

MFeld

63 and I’d grade it higher before I’d grade it lower than that.

EastonCollection

@MFeld said:
63 and I’d grade it higher before I’d grade it lower than that.

The marks on the reverse above the Eagle and the marks on the obverse around the neck gets me to 62. If in hand its isn't as bad that i see it on the photo, then maybe 63. Just my 2 cents.

Typekat

Good photo! I agree with the crowd, pretty much MS63 all day.

I’m wondering why you bought it, since “no way it is a MS 64!” ?

privatecoin

63

johnny010

@MFeld said:
63 and I’d grade it higher before I’d grade it lower than that.

Now we know where gradeflation came from 😜 (just kidding but couldn’t resist Mark).

MFeld

@johnny010 said:

@MFeld said:
63 and I’d grade it higher before I’d grade it lower than that.

Now we know where gradeflation came from 😜 (just kidding but couldn’t resist Mark).

You’re on to me!😉
Very few people are aware of this but originally, the term was MarkFeld’s-grade-flation (“MFGF” for short). However, I petitioned for a change to what’s now referred to. simply as “grade-flation”.

ajaan

64

jp84

62

MFeld

Here’s a PCGS MS63:

marcmoish

I agree with the 63 camp.

DocBenjamin

@MFeld said:

@blitzdude said:
MS63, and I have seen worse in MS64 holders with silly little stickers. RGDS!

And your anti-CAC obsession continues. It's sad.

It is not sad. The CAC experiment resulted a windfall for dealers and a nuisance for collectors.

Have looked at many many coin listings since the inception, small Ebay hacks up to billion dollar a year auctioneers. Coins with a sticker are boldly noted in the title line, but have never seen an admission that a coin had been submitted and failed.

Became a guessing game to the buyers. Has it been to CAC or not?

Yeah I get all the reasons why that would be a costly gambit to the sellers, but the fourth party verifier could never jimp that hurdle.

Fortunately the company stepped up to the plate and went full service. When the stickies are retired, the hobby will be better off.

mattniss

Without looking at anything other than OP's pictures, I saw it as a standard 63. Too much going on to be a 4 in my opinion, but it's good enough for 3.

MFeld

@DocBenjamin said:

@MFeld said:

@blitzdude said:
MS63, and I have seen worse in MS64 holders with silly little stickers. RGDS!

And your anti-CAC obsession continues. It's sad.

It is not sad. The CAC experiment resulted a windfall for dealers and a nuisance for collectors.

Have looked at many many coin listings since the inception, small Ebay hacks up to billion dollar a year auctioneers. Coins with a sticker are boldly noted in the title line, but have never seen an admission that a coin had been submitted and failed.

Became a guessing game to the buyers. Has it been to CAC or not?

Yeah I get all the reasons why that would be a costly gambit to the sellers, but the fourth party verifier could never jimp that hurdle.

Fortunately the company stepped up to the plate and went full service. When the stickies are retired, the hobby will be better off.

All of that’s largely beside the point. That poster often makes anti-CAC comments even when the thread topic has absolutely nothing to do with CAC. Yes, others sometimes do the same with pro-CAC comments but not to the extent he does.

DocBenjamin

@MFeld said:

@DocBenjamin said:

@MFeld said:

@blitzdude said:
MS63, and I have seen worse in MS64 holders with silly little stickers. RGDS!

And your anti-CAC obsession continues. It's sad.

It is not sad. The CAC experiment resulted a windfall for dealers and a nuisance for collectors.

Have looked at many many coin listings since the inception, small Ebay hacks up to billion dollar a year auctioneers. Coins with a sticker are boldly noted in the title line, but have never seen an admission that a coin had been submitted and failed.

Became a guessing game to the buyers. Has it been to CAC or not?

Yeah I get all the reasons why that would be a costly gambit to the sellers, but the fourth party verifier could never jimp that hurdle.

Fortunately the company stepped up to the plate and went full service. When the stickies are retired, the hobby will be better off.

All of that’s largely beside the point. That poster often makes anti-CAC comments even when the thread topic has absolutely nothing to do with CAC. Yes, others sometimes do the same with pro-CAC comments but not to the extent he does.

Guess that is a rule violation. Got to speak well of the competition or hold your tongue.

Morgan13

I think it's a C ms64-63+. I really like the natural surfaces mi

LeeBone

@EastonCollection said:
I like it as a 62 - maybe if I see it in hand it could be a 63 with extra eye appeal.

This

dhikewhitney

@johnny010 said:
62 would be fine.

Edited because I thought the original "an old coin holder" was a PCGS holder. Given that it was not,
I make no call at all on this coin.

For the buyer
I see it as a low end MS64 due to the frost but would want to buy it for less; perhaps hard to sell as a 64

relicsncoins

What kind of slab is that with the black foam insert or is it one of those two piece coin capsules? BTW, I have no problem with it as 63 from the photos and may say 64 in person.

The_Dinosaur_Man

If the luster is blazing or at least super nice, I think this coin does have a shot at 64. We are viewing through an air-tite which could account for some of the marks and hairlines, obviously not the ones dug into the coin. I second the question for what company provided the original holder.

john_nyc1

63

LeeBone

Could be a 63 if I were to see it in hand

johnny010

@DocBenjamin said:

@MFeld said:

@blitzdude said:
MS63, and I have seen worse in MS64 holders with silly little stickers. RGDS!

And your anti-CAC obsession continues. It's sad.

It is not sad. The CAC experiment resulted a windfall for dealers and a nuisance for collectors.

Have looked at many many coin listings since the inception, small Ebay hacks up to billion dollar a year auctioneers. Coins with a sticker are boldly noted in the title line, but have never seen an admission that a coin had been submitted and failed.

Became a guessing game to the buyers. Has it been to CAC or not?

Yeah I get all the reasons why that would be a costly gambit to the sellers, but the fourth party verifier could never jimp that hurdle.

Fortunately the company stepped up to the plate and went full service. When the stickies are retired, the hobby will be better off.

@DocBenjamin
I do not understand your last sentence. I won’t hijack the thread though.

ProofCollection

I could see 64. Although there are plenty of marks they are all very minor, none distracting. Plenty of disturbances in the frost but not bad. If the frost wasn't there most of the small marks would be even less noticeable.

DocBenjamin

@johnny010 said:

@DocBenjamin said:

@MFeld said:

@blitzdude said:
MS63, and I have seen worse in MS64 holders with silly little stickers. RGDS!

And your anti-CAC obsession continues. It's sad.

It is not sad. The CAC experiment resulted a windfall for dealers and a nuisance for collectors.

Have looked at many many coin listings since the inception, small Ebay hacks up to billion dollar a year auctioneers. Coins with a sticker are boldly noted in the title line, but have never seen an admission that a coin had been submitted and failed.

Became a guessing game to the buyers. Has it been to CAC or not?

Yeah I get all the reasons why that would be a costly gambit to the sellers, but the fourth party verifier could never jimp that hurdle.

Fortunately the company stepped up to the plate and went full service. When the stickies are retired, the hobby will be better off.

@DocBenjamin
I do not understand your last sentence. I won’t hijack the thread though.

I'll defer. Enough 300 post CAC threads already,

CRHer700

Looks like a 63 to me.

MrBluster

IMO it is not the most attractive coin but technically. A 64 grade seems ok to me.