Are all 1921-S Morgans generally "BLAH" strikes?

razorface1027 · March 16, 2005 8:17AM

I'm looking over my 1921 P, D & S Morgan set in ms-64, and the 21-S appears to lack luster, strike & generally looks BLAH. Is this common for the date and MM?

Tom

nwcs · March 16, 2005 8:21AM

Yep, 21S usually comes pretty bad.

ElectricEye · March 16, 2005 8:38AM

Blah or not too blah?

FatMan · March 16, 2005 8:43AM

Here's another in 64 for comparison

midwestcoin13 · March 16, 2005 8:44AM

<< <i>Blah or not too blah?

>>

The breast looks weak but the hair on the obverse seems good.

stev32k · March 16, 2005 8:54AM

Here is a 21-S that does not look too bad. It has die breaks on the top and bottom of the reverse that seem to be very common with the 21's. I brought it in a PCGS MS62 holder and it was butt ugly. I cracked it out and soaked it in acetone and it cleaned up pretty nice. I'm going to send it in to PCGS next week and see what what happens.

anablep · March 16, 2005 9:00AM

I've looked for many months for a decent 21-s to match my 21 and 21-D (both toned around the rims) but was not happy with any out there. I found a nice raw 21-S at a coin show in 63/64 but the guy wanted $280. I walked away. Finally found one for less with a nice strike with some toning in PCGS 63 but lacking in luster on the obverse (shiney reverse though). Still, most are unimpressive. Those posted above seem very nice.

coinkat · March 16, 2005 10:12AM

That about sums it up

Buddyboy · March 16, 2005 11:32AM

Mine's a PCGS 64-- weak over the ear, but with very nice luster. Really hard to get well defined strike. Sorry, but I think all '21's from whatever mint are kind of crappy.