Help a neophyte grade Morgans (with pictures)

Malikovski

Hello all, first post here. I'm just wetting my toes in Morgan and Peace dollars, and am finding the line between MS and AU difficult to see. I've picked up a few coins (nothing expensive) trying to nab some unslabbed MS coins at a bargain. Probably a rather tall order, but complicated by the fact that after studying quite a few photos and scans of slabbed coins of different grades, the degree of wear that passes for MS seems to vary. I'll illustrate with some photos:

Here is a coin I purchased (total cost about $12.50, so I am not sweating the grade), since I liked the look. Red circled areas are the areas of wear that my untrained eye detects. Links to full size, unmakred 1200dpi scans are below.



1921 Obverse
1921 Reverse

Two pieces of hair above the ear are clearly flattened, the two leaves on the reverse have lost their detail, and the breast feathers are indistinct. So I figure it has wear, that means it is AU, not MS. But as I have looked through more and more pictures of slabbed coins, I find similar wear on coins that have passed as MS. To keep things as consistent as possible, I've only used PCGS slabs for reference.

Here is an MS62 that looks, IMO, very worn. I even checked the number on the slab, and it is a PCGS graded coin.




Okay, maybe that one's a fluke. But here is an MS65 reverse with a partially flattened leaf:



Here's another MS65 that seems to show wear on both hair and leaves (although the breast feathers are much more definite):



More experienced graders, please enlighten me!

Evan

BlindedByEgo

First of all, welcome.

The "O" mint (New Orleans) have notoriously weak strikes in the hair above the ear.

What you need to do is to look for, amongst other things, "rub" when determining AU vs. MS grades.

Volumes have been written on this - you will even read peoples comments laughingly referring to "AU63".

'Tis a fine line, and one must look at a lot of coins, from different mints, to get an idea of what makes MS...

I suggest the PCGS book on Grading and Counterfeit Detection as an excellent starting point.

Malikovski

Wow, this is an active board. First reply in under 10 minutes!

Thanks for the speedy welcome.

I thought what I might be missing was weak strike vs. wear. I do have the grading guide but have not really dug into the text yet (and the b&w photos are not quite good enough to tell the difference between higher grades. I'll start there.

Out of curiosity, what do make of the coin (first one), to the extent that opinion can be formed based on one scan? Twelve-fifty well spent?

Evan

Deadhorse

Yep, date and mint are often as much a factor as anything in determining the fine line between AU and MS.

New Orleans mints are famous for flat strikes, a true mint state "O" mint mark coin could easily be AU 50 if it had an "S" mint mark on it.

San Fran seemed to produce the sharpest strikes out there, New Orleans the worst. Next you are going to have to be looking for cleaning as a couple of those, the 21 in particular look dipped out and cleaned. Luster is a huge factor in determining MS coins as well.

You've got some study work ahead of you. Don't worry, you'll get there. There are mountains of material to read on Morgan dollars.

Malikovski

<< <i>There are mountains of material to read on Morgan dollars. >>



Hmmm...where can I get a book on morgans with about a thousand color plates? Seems like a photo reference for each year and mint is what I need!

messydesk

Welcome to the fray.

You've illustrated quite well how not all coins are created equal. First of all, the 1921 looks like an AU coin to me. Telltale areas are the eagle's breast feathers and "knuckles," Liberty's neck near the tip of the bust, and the hair over the ear. When looking at wear, though, you can't compare a 1921 Morgan with any other Morgan for a few reasons. First of all, they are entirely different designs. Both obverse are reverse hubs had to be re-created since the old hubs were long gone. The relief is lower and the execution is sloppier than earlier dates. Second, as a result of the lower relief, the characteristics of the strike are different. You won't find 1921 Morgans stuck like the MS62 1901-O. The 1901-O (and several other O mints) are usually poorly struck, with hair over the ear and breast feather details missing. At the other end of the spectrum, are coins like the 1880-S and other early S-mints, which always have a great strike (such as the one you picture) and great luster. If you can get a copy of Wayne Miller's Morgan and Peace Dollar Textbook, he has a date-by-date analysis of the strike, luster, and prooflike qualities of Morgan and Peace dollars.

coinguy1

Welcome Evan.

Here are a couple of things to look for when trying to distinguish rub/wear from weakness in strike:

1) Sometimes (though unfortunately, not always) strike weakness appears as the same hue/shade/texture as the rest of the coin, whereas rub/wear will look different/darker.

2) A coin which displays rub/wear (as opposed to one which is weakly struck in areas) will usually also show other signs of light circulation, such as hairlnes in the fields, impaired luster, etc. Yes, a mint state coin can also have some of the same, but these are factors to at least take into account in reaching a conclusion about the grade.

The fine line between a coin which is almost uncirculated and one which is uncirculated can be very difficult to distinguish, even by experts (who often disagree) and even with a coin in hand. It's often impossible to be able to do the same based upon images, no matter how good they might be.

jmj3esq

I have questioned the common wear on the hair above Liberty's ear. I have a PCGS graded Morgan that shows almost the same wear (above the ear) as your pictures and it has a MS 64 tag. I also have one with similar wear that graded AU 55. What is funny about it all is the fact that the my AU 55 looks almost better than the MS 64 overall. These TPGs have my head spinning.

MikeInFL

As Mark pointed out, telling the difference between a light strike and wear on Morgans makes telling an AU coin from an MS coin difficult at best. Impared luster seems to be the easiest way to tell for me, personally, and will be evidenced in the following photos.

Here are four 1921-D Morgans. They are graded XF 45, AU 58, MS 62, and MS 64 respectively.









Also, I would suggest that you sign up for a free account on Heritage and paruse their pictures where you'll find so many examples of these coins your head will spin.

Have fun...Mike

p.s.

JJM

to the board and

welcome to morgans, they are the best !!!!

paigowjohnny

Take a look at this web site, including the "strike guide" for dollars with notoriously weak strikes

Coin grading site

anablep

Welcome!

Morgans are a fantastic series. Good luck with your coins.

Wolf359

Welcome.

What is funny about it all is the fact that the my AU 55 looks almost better than the MS 64 overall.

Your eye just needs to be "trained". An AU55 is usually a coin in hand that is obviously circulated
while the MS64 has some flash and eye appeal. Put the two (untoned) coins side-by-side and compare
them. The MS64 will be reflect light better and be brighter for starters. The AU55 coin will
appear darker at high points - this is wear.

Malikovski

Thanks to all who've responded. This certainly is a friendly place, much more so that most forums I've visited. A dozen replies with only one gentle (and correct) suggestion that I Read the Fine Manual, already purchased but yet unstudied.

Thanks also for the links, very useful.

I suppose trying to find unslabbed MS coins on eBay is a stretch, but I've been paying less than AU prices, so I can't complain.

If luster is a good way to tell MS vs. AU, that of course brings up the issue of cleaning. The 1921, for example is shiny (somewhat less so than it appears in the scan), but examined under magnification, the surface looks natural and smooth. There are quite a few contact marks, but they appear random rather than parallel, and there is a nice cartwheel effect when tilted in the light.

This one other the other hand...



shows many fine hairlines under magnification, and many run in parallel, as though something were wiped across it. Cartwheel is still visible however, and the surfaces look smooth other than the hairlines.

This one...



show no cartwhell, and the surface, again only when viewed under magnification, has an ever-so-slightly roughened texture, though uniformly bright and shiny.

Would it be reasonable to assume that the 1921 is lightly circulated, but uncleaned, the 1896 has been polished with a mild abrasive, and the 1891 has been dipped?

kryptonitecomics

The 1896 looks uncirculated to me while the 1891 looks cleaned and possibly lightly polished........very difficult to judge certain coins via images though. As other have pointed out...don't confuse a week strike for wear and learn where the high points are of each coin design like the hair on the obverse and the breast feathers on the reverse. Using the leaves on the reverse of the morgan would not necessarily be a good indicator. I agree with others in reference to you signing up for Heritage as the Permanenet auction archives are quite useful in determining how to grade as well as valuate your graded coins.

I don't think spending $12.50 a pop is necessarily a bad way to learn what you should and should not buy but if you read the book first....there woun't be a need to experiment with raw coins on Ebay.

Here is an 1880-S MS66 Morgan as an example of a clean coin with Minimal hits...





Disregard what appears to be black crusty toning as it's actually very light purple and hardly noticable on the coin in Hand.

merz2

There is also the coins that had flat spots due to being in rolls.That doesn't consttuit wear IMHO.

MikeInFL

<< <i>]Would it be reasonable to assume that the 1921 is lightly circulated, but uncleaned, the 1896 has been polished with a mild abrasive, and the 1891 has been dipped? >>



With the disclaimer that judging grade and surface quality from photos is difficult at best (scanners are even worse), IMHO, the 1921 is a high AU coin, the 1896 has been wiped and/or dipped, and the 1891 has been polished...Mike

Malikovski

<< <i>The 1896 looks uncirculated to me while the 1891 looks cleaned and possibly lightly polished........ >>



The 1896 is the best looking, both with and without magnification, but what to make of the many, many hairlines? They are only visible at certain angles and in very bright light, but they're there. I would like to get a few coins graded at some point down the road, to see how my best guess lines up a professional grade (yes, I know, still arbitrary to a degree), but it seems that unless you think the coin is going to come back MS65, the cost of grading is not worth it. E.g., for that 1896. I think I paid about $15. If I add another $18 for grading, it has to come back MS64 for the book value to exceed my outlay.



<< <i>

<< <i>]Would it be reasonable to assume that the 1921 is lightly circulated, but uncleaned, the 1896 has been polished with a mild abrasive, and the 1891 has been dipped? >>


With the disclaimer that judging grade and surface quality from photos is difficult at best (scanners are even worse), IMHO, the 1921 is a high AU coin, the 1896 has been wiped and/or dipped, and the 1891 has been polished...Mike >>



Hmm...that's opposite of what I expected. I thought the hairlines would indicate polish with abrasive, while uniform surface pitting and uniform shininess would be more indicative of a chemical dip? Yes, I should be reading the book instead of posting...

I suppose the nick in the rim is strike two. Time to relist on eBay!