Help me grade this 79-S Morgan?
mirabela
Posts: 5,012 ✭✭✭✭✭
I bought this raw off eBay about a year ago. I paid for it as a 64, but I think it may well be better. These are the seller's pics -- the lighting is strange; the real color is a subtle original greenish-goldish grey, a little darker around the reverse rims. Not nearly so sickly blue as the pics. There is only one significant hit on the coin, a sharp horizontal dig of a little less than 1 mm just beneath Liberty's eye. Aside from that, just the light scuffing of luster that you see on the cheek and in the fields. The reverse has light, light scuffing on the breast, and aside from that it is nearly flawless. So, as hard as it is to grade from a picture -- and especially these pictures -- I'd appreciate your thoughts. I'm debating sending her in.
mirabela
0
Comments
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Louis
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
<< <i>f the luster is really as dull as the pictures >>
It isn't. The coin in hand isn't all that far from white, really, and pretty frosty. The lighting is just weird.
Thanks to those who've replied so far. I respect your judgments -- you may be right this is a 63, that's why I'm asking -- but I'll add that in hand it's cleaner than any 63 I've personally examined in a PCGS or NGC holder. Granted that's not an astronomical number of coins, but if it's a 63 it's a good one. Maybe I need to take some pics of it myself, and put them up at some point. Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts.
Sorry, I guess I should have foreseen that these pics wouldn't be all that useful. The guy's pictures in general were lousy. I bought an '83 and an '83-O from him as well, paying AU bid -- and received two pleasant original UNC coins that I take to be 63's. Neither is as nice as this one. I think the 'look' of his pictures is most of the reason I got the other two as low as I did.