MS-66 vs MS-67 on a Morgan

numonebuyer

What is the key thing you look for to differentiate between a MS-66 and a MS-67 on a Morgan?

Sandhawk

The number at the top of the slab

Punscoins

nobody knows....

jbsteven

67's usually have to have above average luster and a full strike. After this then of course the amount of marks on the coin has to be less than a ms66. There are other things but these are the biggest IMO.

stman

<< <i>What is the key thing you look for to differentiate between a MS-66 and a MS-67 on a Morgan? >>



Nice big "apple cheek" with only the slightest bit of marks and very very light at that. Virtually mark free fields. Along with of course blazing luster, and absolutely the fullest strike that would come for the year and mint-mark. Yup, I want it all for a 67 Morgan.

nwcs

Luster is usually the difference between the two. I think people misgrade most often by not understanding luster or giving it enough weight. That's fine, if that's how they like to grade. But PCGS weighs luster heavily and if you want to predict what PCGS will grade, you have to understand luster.

foodude

What Jason and nwcs said, and yes many people seem to overlook the importance of luster

CalGold

<< <i>many people seem to overlook the importance of luster >>



Or the grading services give too much weiight to luster. This, like point boosts for toning, is one of my pet peeves. I recall a thread a few months back featuring an 1894-s in MS63. The dealer who is notorious for hyping every coin in his inventory and was asking strong money claimed it looked like a 64 . No it didn't. It looked like very shiny 62. It was marked up something awful but got a point boost for luster.

CG

nwcs

Could be that they give too much importance to it. But as long as they are consistent with it, I'm OK.

lava

A 66 should appear nearly perfect on a cursory inspection. A 67 should appear the same way, but upon closer inspection.

foodude

Or the grading services give too much weiight to luster.

Could be that they give too much importance to it.

Right or wrong, their standards tend to give it more weight then many people do, or the standards some people have give it less weight than the grading services do.

oreville

MS-67 should have perfect fields. Small 1 or 2 bagmarks in obscure areas of the devices can be tolerated. Luster should be superlative. Strike should be strong as well. After all, MS-67 is also defined as superlative gem mint state grade. Old technical grading standard as taught to me.

MS-67 in picture form:

foodude

oreville

Nice holder to boot. I wish I had put one of my coins in one of those monster holders. I almost put my icon coin in one.

UncleWiggly

The fields

Jerry

techeff

It's all about the strike!