Morgans: AU-58 v. MS

coolkarma

How do you tell the difference? I have Halperin's book "How to Grade US Coins" which helps for comparing AU55 v. MS coins, but it doesn't seem to help for AU-58's. At arm's length, I don't see lustre breaks at Halperin's high points. With a 10X loupe there are no smooth spots. What are your secrets? PCGS's secrets? Very intense or low light? Black light? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated?


What prompted this, of course, is a package from PCGS. I sent in an 1883-s, 1896-o and a 1901. I thought they were all MS-60 to MS-62 Well, two came back AU-58 and one MS-61. The obverses are below, which do you think made MS-61? And why didn't the others?

CarlWohlforth

I'll guess the '96 is MS. It appears to have some luster from the phtos. The other two appear to only have luster in the areas protected by the stars. I would be more certain if I was holding the coins in hand and tilting them under my lamp.

jdsinva

Only looking at these photos, the fields of two of the coins seem to lack luster (1883-S & 1901). . .note the area around the first 3-4 stars to the left of the date. The 1896-O doesn't seem to have this luster disturbance, so I would guess it was the MS example.

Jeff

jdimmick

I would say the 83-s and the 01 are Au-58's and the 96 is the Ms coin

tsacch

good thread man, I am going with the crowd on this one........seems the 96 is the unc

razorface1027

83-S is MS-61

mgoodm3

83 and 01 are 58, 96 is MS61

kranky

Use a 100w bulb in a darkened room, and rotate the coin around so you see the light reflecting from various angles off the surfaces.

BillJones

I'd vote that the 1896 is the MS-61 graded coin, although I would not give it an MS grade either.

There other two have obvious wear in the fields that has impaired the luster. They are truly AU coins without doubt.

Where there is a large price difference between the MS grades and the AU grades, the grading services get VERY PICKY as well they might. That's why some of the AU coins for the dates you mentioned sometimes look so nice for the grade.

coinbuf

OK look again at your three coins; the cartwheel band is strong all the way from the middle of the coin to the rim on the 96, right. If you check the cartwheel band on the 83 it will be broken or difussed as you rotate the coin. This is because there is too much chatter in the fields which has broken or dulled the luster. If the coin has no obvious rub or wear but the luster bands are not complete from center to rim in my experience PCGS will give the coin a grade of AU58. I'm no expert on this but that is JMO baised upon some coins I've submitted.

Chris

BTW that 1901 looks ok in the pic you may want to resubmit it.

nwcs

Well, telling AU 58 in a picture is hard. But you can generally spot trace rub by looking for the dull areas on the high points and/or scattered marks that disrupt luster indicative of circulation.

coolkarma

WOW! I'm impressed. I didn't think anyone would be able to tell from pictures You are correct, the 1896-o is PCGS MS61; the 1883-s and 1901 are graded AU58. From your comments I see I need to take a more global view of the coin. Significant chatter in the fields (which they have) can result in AU-58's.

I had concluded that the 1883-s was AU-58 because the date normally has very strong lustre and this one does not. However, both the 1896-o and the 1901 are well known for having poor to very poor lustre. In hand (and with the 100 watt bulb), I think the 1901 has the better lustre, both globally and over the high points. I thought it was the better coin. However, I agree that the image of the 1896-o does look better. Sometimes images catch features that are hard to see directly.

Thanks for your very quick and informative observations. Next time maybe I'll post the images here before submitting the coins

CoolKarma

Chris, yes, the 1901 may be making another trip to PCGS at some point.