Discuss the grade: PCGS 1904-S Morgan
ProofCollection
Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was looking at the upcoming Stacks auction and this coin caught my. Immediately I thought this coin is undergraded but it's in a fresh slab and I assume it's been to CAC and failed but the coin looks beautiful for an MS63. Are the roller marks the main reason for the MS63 grade? I didn't think a planchet flaw could hold a coin back that much. What am I missing?
https://www.pcgs.com/trueview/50533921
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-1F40NE/1904-s-morgan-silver-dollar-ms-63-pcgs
2
Comments
Luster looks a bit dull and looks like some sort of haze over the coin. I think some would argue this looks more like a really nice AU58.
Roller marks are not an issue. Here is a 92-O with a soft strike and noticeable roller marks that graded 64.
Collector, occasional seller
Can you or someone point out why or where you're seeing rub to make it an AU58?
Not sure if it's maybe because of the softer strike for this date/mm or is it actual rub?
Just from the photo I could see the 1904-s as ms64
Casual collector, mostly Morgans & Peace Dollars.
Appears to be graded to the price sheet.
Roller marks usually not an issue for PCGS, but have heard they are an issue for stickering. Always tough to tell from pictures but agreed, it looks to me there's just some flat luster and a softer strike keeping the grade down, no concerns with the roller marks "net grading" this one down.
I had the thread where CAC denied a sticker due to roller marks but they were heavy. I have since seen a few stickered coins with "minor" roller marks, so I think it's a matter of degree for a sticker.
I agree strike is soft and luster isn't great, but if the grade of 63 reflects this, why else wouldn't this coin have stickered (assuming it was submitted)?
Well it may just be the combination of dull luster and strike weakness making it look like it has rub on all the high areas. The numerous small marks I would associate with light circulation rather than bag marks. I could be, and probably am, wrong.
Collector, occasional seller
I don't think the roller marks are an issue for the pricing room, as you said its a matter of degree for the sticker and I just don't know on that. The eagles breast looks like rub in the photo, only tilting it under the light would confirm or deny my suspicion, from these photos I would grade it AU58+.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Luster and strike on an 04-S isn't typically all that great, and this is no exception. The obverse field from 8-10 looks thoroughly, though lightly, marked -- perhaps too much so for a 64. I do like the coin, though.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
The Mint of the United States at San Francisco,
Superintendent’s Office
January 28, 1904
Hon. Geo. E. Roberts
Director of the Mint ,
Washington, D.C.
Sir: I regret to have to again call your attention to the inferiority of the dies being set us. We have received so far 20 pairs of standard dollar dies for 1904 coinage, The reverse dies seem to be in pretty fair condition and do fairly good work in comparison with the obverse dies. The obverse dies seem to have the proper convexity before going into
the press , but after a very short service they flatten down and thus increase the difficulty of doing good work. As a result we have practically run out of obverse dies but have six good reverse dies on hand. We would like to have sent us as soon as possible six obverse dollar dies to match…
Very respectfully
Frank A. Leach
Superintendent
My first thought is the combination of it looking a bit hazy with muted lustre. I also looked up the TVs, and they're one more set of photos with rather soft light, so if there is light chatter, it may be masked in all the photos.
A lot of 04-S are muted luster. I like it as a 64 all day every day unless you can confirm the rub in hand (no pun)
Soft strike
Planchet stations on eagles breast
I like the coin as a 64 no issues
Here's the thing about the rub everyone is claiming. In my experience, PCGS doesn't miss rub and are VERY QUICK to assign an AU grade if there's any hint of it. This is a fresh slab. I don't think they're letting any rub go by.
The Trueview does look much nicer
Collector, occasional seller
My guess is 1. TV is flattering. 2.The luster is typical of 04-s which is often an underwhelming greasy look. 3. Be careful of lines that might not show up.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Tons of Morgans have roller marks. They are not a big deal. That Coin should have graded 64, IMHO. Those two lines at 9 o’clock aren’t really that bad. Strike is kind of middle of the road. Same with luster. Not bright, but not too dull, either. I like it at 64.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I think the muted luster held it back.
Send it in to CAC
63 CAC
64 DNPC
?
My 64 CAC is not muted but that’s more uncommon than not.
The dipping took luster obviously, but the cheek is clean and collectors will value that long term.
I like it as a 63 and it's a good date to have in mint state.
As discussed above, my theory is that it's probably already been to CAC (and failed), but there's a chance it hasn't.
I agree with our hosts grade. It has nice luster but somewhat soft strike (typical for the issue). The cheek is relative clean except for what looks like roller marks. It is not of the quality I am looking for - pass. Prefer material MS64 and above for US Classic material.
Not all coins within the same series are created equal. The 1904-s is a below average product for the San Francisco mint. Seems there is clear evidence within this thread to support this. I have no problem with 63 and would need to see it in hand if I am going to offer up a differing opinion than what is on the slab.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Are you sending it?
I'm sorry the OP wasn't clear. I don't own the coin, it's currently in auction. I thought it would make interesting discussion and also help me understand why the grade isn't higher or doesn't have a CAC sticker.
I get the luster isn't great but it isn't negative. And strike isn't great either. But I think the cleanliness of the coin makes up for those things somewhat. Aside from luster I would rather have this coin than any of the 63s and many of the 64s in Coinfacts.
I'm probably not going to bid on it or I wouldn't have posted it here lest it drive up the competition. But I am still considering it.
Ok
I don’t think anyone should assume a coin has been to CAC if the coin is solid for the grade, which this one is.
And I don’t think anyone should assume a coin is soIid for the grade based on images.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My assumption that it's been to CAC is based on the price point of the coin and the fact that it's in a recent holder and the prevailing sentiment that "all coins have been to CAC." If I were to buy it I would be silly not to submit it myself just to make sure though.
These do look like "wheel marks." That may explain why CAC laid off it. You may even be lucky it graded. NGC easily may have detailed it. PCGS does that sometimes, as well, see here...
Those look like roller marks, not wheel marks to me. Often, the latter aren’t even apparent in images. Additionally, while it’s understandable that some people assume the coin’s been seen by CAC, we don’t know whether that’s been the case. So they might not have “laid off it”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.