Morgan Grading...XF or AU...What's the big diff??Help!!

Manorcourtman

Since my grading ability in non MS Morgans coins is debatable.....What is the biggest difference between a Morgan in EF vs. AU? The reason I ask is that I have my eye on a 1892s that is on the fence between the two grades. And the diff between these two grades is huge!! The coin still has mirrored fields although it looks tarnished or off white. One more question.......what is the tell-tale sign of a cleaned Morgan in this grading range?? It isn't obviously cleaned. I don't have a pic btw. But any cheap advice is appreciated!! They want $400 for the coin btw....A large risk with possible large rewards......What's a Morgan newbie to do??? Run for the exit??

Thanks, Chris

Placid

Luster remaining and amount of wear.

CalGold

If its raw and you cannot grade it yourself with a high level of certainty, do not buy it.

It is not really possible to tell you how to distinguish a liner xf 45 from an au 50–you need to study the PCGS grading guide and look at a lot of properly graded coins.

But your statement that it has mirrored fields is a red flag that the coin has been polished. In this grade range, a coin that was struck as a pl or dmpl would show only slight traces of mirror fields in or around the edges of the lettering and the devices, if at all. If the fields themselves are still reflective, it has been polished. If it were an au58 or even an au55 it would have subdued mirrored fields, with a loss of reflectivity in the central portions of the fields.

CG

Placid

Here are some pcgs ones.

AU50

AU50-2

XF45

XF45-2

CalGold

One other thing, regarding mirror fields. This coin is rare in prooflike condition. Heritage has sold only three PL coins, AU 55 and 58s in the last ten years so the liklihood that you are being offered a genuine AU pl is slim.

Perhaps you meant to refer to regular mint luster rather than mirrored fields. But the effects I described above regarding mirrored fields would apply as well with luster--an XF coin will have more muted luster. Hard to describe in words.

CG

Placid

The first xf45 I linked is described as.
1892-S $1 XF45 PCGS. Formerly mirrored surfaces are visible in the protected areas of the design on this somewhat circulated example. Evenly abraded, though without any particularly distracting marks

It looks alot like Manorcourtman describes.

BigAl

I've seen some Very nice XF45 Morgans. The reason they didn't make AU50 is b/c they just didn't have enough luster left. Trying to determine luster looking at a pic can be tough especially if the pic is poor.

Scroll down to the post by K6AZ in this link and look at the 1895-O (middle coin), this is about the minimum amount of luster needed to make AU50 at pcgs. If this coin had the same luster as the 1895-O (top coin) it would probably make AU53 because the detail is there. My point is, you may see a Morgan with AU50 details, but if the luster is gone you have XF45.

CalGold brings up a good point about the fields and offers some very good advice about purchasing a liner.

after all, why would he be selling an AU 1892s for $400?

100proof1957

i have an 1891S that i swear is MS.
been graded twice at AU58,but that was 15 yrs ago ?

Proof

Manorcourtman

Thanks guys, I did not realize luster was that important.

jdimmick

I agree with the above comments. First the wear should be commensurate with the grade indicated. (Loss of metal). Also one of the most important things already mentioned is luster. IMO very important on Morgan's. There are several Xf-45's that have AU wear, but are just missing in the luster dept or that something else and PCGS will hit them with Xf-45 or sometimes they wont. Also the amount of surface and contact marks will have an impact on the grade determination when the coin is on the fence. Personally, I would not buy a Morgan dollar with a big price jump at AU for AU money unless I was darn sure it would holder at AU. Not only that, on your bigger dates Like the 92-s, 03-s and even more so the 93-s, you want to locate a coin even holdered that is a no question AU coin. I have seen several bigger date AU-50's and 53's for that matter that have that "Looks AU to me" but still a question in your mind, the one youd be scared to break out and re-submit for fear they would Xf-45 the coin. I know when I finally found my 93-s Morgan, I knew it was the coin for me when I saw it. An Unquestionable AU coin, original luster, solid detail and great eye-appeal. In fact everyone I have ever shown the coin too, says solid Au, looks 53. ""Thats what you want to find in a better date Au Morgan"". Some folks will suggest going into the higher grade AU category which will a majority of the time improve the quality of the coin, but not always. However, on a lot of dates especially 92-s and 93-s the price increases dramatically with each increment towards MS-60.

jim

CalGold

I like the first XF-45 coin that Placid linked. Compare it to the two AU 50 coins and it shows more marks but not more wear. And its a good example of how the vestiges of proof like fields will be found around the letters and devises but not in the central fields. Compare it to the second XF-45, and it sure looks like an AU that was graded XF-45 due to marks.

CG

coinkat

The 1892-s in an original AU50+ grade is tough. The examples linked have all been dipped and I really am not impressed with them. Look for lustre and originality. This date is usually well struck. The vast majority of slabbed 92-s Morgans graded AU50 and higher have been enhanced by dipping because of the spread between EF and AU. This date could easily be the topic of a similar thread TDN started about a rare high grade Trade Dollar that was victimized.

DennisH

Sometimes the difference between XF45 and AU50 isn't really there. On two occasions I've sent in PCGS XF45 Morgans in the holder for regrade and had them come back AU53.

CalGold

<< <i>The examples linked have all been dipped and I really am not impressed with them >>



Baloney. Just because they are not dove grey does not mean that have been dipped.

CG

coinkat

CalGold:

My opinion was based on the pictures and I am probably not as skilled as others at grading from pictures. However, these coins do not look original to me. Perhaps I should refrain from offering a thought on the originality of these examples unless I actually saw them first. The problem with this date is the vast majority in the AU spectrum have been dipped. I still believe and maintain that original, undipped 1892-s Morgans that grade AU50 and higher are quite rare... much scarcer than those examples linked to this thread.