GRADE REVEALED FOR: What do you grade this coin and why? A case of misleading images....

coinguy1

Take a look at these images, and if you feel like it, let us know what you grade this coin AND how you arrived at your grade?

I KNOW that the images are (unintentionally) misleading and will talk more about that later......

kamehameha00

From the photos it looks like it's been circulated, and would grade AU-55. But since you said the photo is misleading, I'll guess MS-65.

airplanenut

I see more work in these images

Outhaul

I agree...AU-55

Russ

MS64PL.

Russ, NCNE

Stuart

The coin looks like a colorfully toned Proof Morgan which may have some light circulation wear on the highest points (Liberty's Cheek and Eagle's Breast) -- hard to tell from this photo.

If so, PR-58. Look at the great strike which although a bit weak in the hair over Liberty's ear, shows very strong hair detail in the curls below the ear in her neck area.

The attractive toning may hide some evidence of slight wear, and perhaps some hairlines in the unprotected fields of the coin.

Russ

<< <i>The coin looks like a colorfully toned Proof Morgan >>



I thought it might be a proof, but I decided against it. The flatness above the ear looks like classic roll friction to me. OTOH, it is very crisply struck, particularly the eagle's breast.

Russ, NCNE

DMWJR

I'll bet that in a flat, dead on shot, the coin looks dull gray or smokey, which means points off. It's a Proof also, with no circulation wear.

PR-62

ANACONDA

I'd give the coin a 65 or 66. The strike could be better but for 92-Ps that is pretty good (but then again dated Morgans are not my specialty)

Vet

From the photos it appears to have a small amount of rub on the hair above the ear and on the wingtips and legs AU55. Setting that aside 65pl

BigMoose

coinguy 1, I believe this is a proof. Many Morgan Proofs from 1888 through 1893 are flatly struck over the ear, especially 1892 and 1893. The coin is very clean, the mirrors are not booming, and I see no obvious hairlines, so I will guess PCGS PR66.

boiler78

Im with the proof crowd but I wouldn't hazard a guess at the grade. It is impossible to see hairlines (if there are any) in the image and therefore impossible to grade. For what its worth I have owned two 1892 proof Morgans and both had similar weakness over the ear.

dragon

Yes, it's clearly a proof, but impossible to determine the grade from those pics. Although the toning on that piece is probably much darker in person, it looks like someone tried to make the color lighter and more vibrant in those pics using that angle.

Also, BigMoose is correct, many proofs of this date and ESPECIALLY from 1893 came with poor strikes which can make them appear as circulated to the untrained eye.

dragon

coinkat

PR 61. The reverse strike leads me to believe it is a Proof. It's not just the breast feathers, take a good look at the wings and notice the completeness which is quite unusual. This may have been mishandled and I say that because of the cabinet friction on the high points on the obverse. I have a feeling there are hairlines and when Mark posts another picture, we will get a better handle on the depth of the fields.

nwcs

This one is a toughie. Part of it looks MS to me and part looks AU. My instinct puts it at AU 58. Mostly the areas on the cheek and eyebrow keep me from declaring MS. And some of the areas of the cap lead me there, too.

FC57Coins

When you take a picture of a coin with the light reflecting on the coin directly like this example shows, small blemishes and hairlines tend to dissapear. Unfortunately this is one of the few ways to show prooflike surfaces and toning on them in particular. So my guess is no guess at all - I can tell that the fields might have some prooflike qualities to them and there is definitely some color on the coin, but again I can't be certain of what it is. So I would pass on this one.

khayse

It sure looks like wear along the high points. Don't know much about the series and don't know if it's a proof or not but it looks 55-58.

-KHayse

merz2

I have to agree with the Proof crowd.I also believe it isn't wear but poor strike with stacking friction to boot.Without seeing in hand I'd say PR62 PL.

tsacch

i just want to hear about the misleading images at this point

DMWJR

Curious minds want to know . . .

(this shouldn't be sitting on page 2 either)

ER

Hey, the image looks different now than when you first posted it! Very "misleading".

coinlieutenant

I'll go out on a limb and say PF 67...

Very pretty...I would pay AU58 money btw Mark if you want to sell it

mgoodm3

My first thought was proof. not a great strike obv. The angle brings out what color there is, but it's probably fairly dark from straight on. The angle also will hide a lot of imperfections. Can't grade accurately on an angled shot.

sliderider

Proof 62. There a huge spot in the hair over Libertys ear with no detail at all. Weak strike I would say. The cheek and fields appear to be clean and the eagle has loads of feather detail. The head and the eagle look white and frosty and the fields look shiny, but not in a PL/DMPL way, at least to me.

I looked again and there do appear to be a few tiny hairlines scattered around, but not in a way suggestive of cleaning or poor handling, but I think enough to keep it out of the 64-65 range. There are also a few black spots in the toning surrounded by white circles that look like tiny pits or maybe dirt particles stuck to the surface.

coinguy1

Tomorrow I will show additional images and reveal the grade

DMWJR

Boooooo! You're a tease!

ER

<< <i>Tomorrow I will show additional images and reveal the grade >>


Only one more hour until tomorrow.

Cratylus

Gonna agree with BigMoose and say PCGS PR66 for the exact same reasons.

Baley

The angled light and/or the toning might be hiding something, so I'll also go the impaired proof route; could be anything from PR55 to 65. need more information. First approximation PR62.

Newmismatist

Most likely a proof ( I've owned several 92s & they have flat hair just like this one) - hard to grade w/o being able to rotate it in the light to check for hairlines - could be anywhere from Pr62 - Pr66 Have to hold it in your hand to accurately grade it - so Mark just send it to me and I'd be happy to give you my opinion as to its grade (used to collect the darn things - a fun set to put together- 'cept that 95 gets a bit pricy!)

michael

i love the eye appeal of the coin

the usual weak strike over the ear for a proof 1892 one of the highest mintages i think close to 1300 struck of the proof morgans struck in a large quantity because this was the first year of the barber series
and the mint wanted to have many many more complete proof sets on hand for the popular first year proof issue of three new designs of the barber dime quarter and half

i really like the eye appeal and original colorsof this coin as usually most all of the 1892 proof morgans are dipped white with ugly brown lemon yellow secondary toning and/or cloudy hazy mirrors usually they are not cameoed and such is the case with this coin also waht really makes this coin special is the fact that most all 1892 proof morgans have a washed out look to them and this coin based on the photos does not have this washed out look as the dipped coins the white coins usually have this washed out look this coin in the photo appears to be deeply mirrored and not really cameoed but with a thick mottled skin to it

depending on the hairlines and/or any contact marks on the coin and i would need to see this coin in person sight seen to tell this this coin could be anywhere from proof 63 to proo65/66

again all of the above is just from a photo of this coin sight seen might be different

overall an unusual coin based on the photo due to its surface toning and undipped qualities and also what appears to be deep mirrors


michael

dorkkarl

i only read the initial post, & would guess slider, pr-58

K S

tradedollarnut

Proof62 or 63.

Steve27

I'm with the proof crowd, PR62.

ER

Is he awake yet?

Oldnewbie

I'll go with a dusty grey PR-63.

Russellp23

65DMPL

Stuart

<< Is he awake yet? >>

ER: Mark's a left-coaster, and they take longer to wake up than right-coasters and those of us in the Central Time Zone.

coinguy1

ER

More tease! Get on with it, man.

Stuart

Mark: Obviously the new images that you posted literally show the coin in a different light... This post reminds me of my 1898 Morgan post in which one set of images showed colorful toning, and the other showed hairlines without the color.

Different light angles, will depict different aspects of the coin. Moral of the story is that you cannot fully evaluate what the coin looks like from a few digital photos. You have to examine the coin in person and rotate it in the proper light.

You can sometimes establish a maximum grade based on flaws evident from the photos, but you cannot establish a minimium grade due to potentially hidden flaws in the photo...

mgoodm3

Nice hairlines.

photoman

My opinion, both sets of photos are accurate. Its all geometry.

Doug
ANR

CarlWohlforth

When I first saw the image I thought it sure looked like a proof but it couldn't be because of the lack of detail in the hair above the ear. Thanks to Michael for pointing out that is typical of 1892 proof Morgans, I appreciate learning that.

ER

All kidding aside, PR58.
OK, Mark, now you can reveal the grade.

DMWJR

Ok, looks like I was close on the dull smokey PR62 thing. Frankly I was worried that the trickiness would make me look like a fool so I didn't add any more to my explanation, but I will now.

Proof Morgans are usually graded fairly liberally by all services because of their rarity. This seems common with classic proofs, but of course not modern proofs, even when their mintage is very low. Take the Matte Lincolns for example and the 1936 proofs. Those are strictly graded even though the mintages are small. I could be wrong, but the Morgan Proofs are the most liberally graded series by PCGS. I have seen unbelievable hairlined proof Morgans in PR60 holders. Those coins would have been bodybagged in any other series. In general any of these that are graded under PR63 are problem coins. Also many that are PR63 are problem coins. If you want a nice proof, you are going to have to by a PR64 or higher.

In photographing coins, I have noticed wildly different photos due to lighting and angle and have seen many dull coins angled showing wild colors. As soon as I saw the thin splotchy colors, I immediately suspected that this was the case with this coin.

Ok, so now tell me it is MS 65 so I can hang my head in shame . . .

shylock

My opinion, both sets of photos are accurate. Its all geometry.

Well said. Proofs or prooflikes look different in hand depending on what angle you hold them to the light, especially if they have underlying color. So it makes sense they'd look different to a camera lens too. Providing two sets of images should be standard procedure for some of these. The standard 90 degree angle captures better detail, the angled shot gives you a taste of the color.

mgoodm3

<< <i>My opinion, both sets of photos are accurate. Its all geometry.

Doug
ANR >>



True, but only the straight-on shot is useful for grading.

dorkkarl

sorry, but the coin is overgraded.

K S

Shamika

AU-55

I see a bunch of hairlines and the flatness above the ear appears to be more wear than weak strike.

ziggy29

PR-63.