Opinion on a couple Morgan $'s please
wam98
Posts: 2,685 ✭
Picked these up yesterday. The image is close to how they look in hand. Kinda like how they look. I'd like other opinions though. The 80 S, I give EF-45. The 81 S, EF-40. I know it's impossible to grade from my images.
1880 S
1881 S
1880 S
1881 S
Wayne
******
******
0
Comments
Cameron Kiefer
Louis
Seth
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
XF-81-S
Both appear to be possibly chemically cleaned & have retoned.
******
81-S 50
I'm curious, why go with AU coins of this date? You can find really nice MS63s even if you are on a tight budget.
81-S XF45
Considering how plentiful these dates are, I would continue looking and find some attractive MS examples that have a more "original" look to them.....
<< <i>You guys calling the 81-S XF, what are you going by to drop the coin into XF? >>
Trace of luster would make me think XF. But I think the pic is misleading.
Can't tell lustre from the scans, which will have much impact on the actual grades.
My reason is because that's one of the nastiest looking coins I ever saw posted on this board & it's not deserving of any leeway in grading points. It has slight flat spots on the cotton leaves i.a.w. XF-45; and for AU-50 it would have "slight traces of wear" on the egales breast, legs etc but it looks more "lightly worn" & the right wing tip shows wear which is i.a.w. ANA grading standards for XF-45.
<< <i>My reason is because that's one of the nastiest looking coins I ever saw posted on this board >>
Edit to add... I'd have to disagree with this statement Dog.
Dog97, one of the nastiest looking coins I ever saw posted on this board.
No, you must have missed this one. She was runner up in an ugly Morgan contest.
******
******