Grade this Morgan

bhartman35 · February 28, 2006 9:39AM

Hi, Everyone.

I bought this coin a few years ago. Would you coinsider this MS-64? I bought it at that grade now, but I'm not sure as I look at it now.

billboat · February 28, 2006 9:46AM

Photo is hard to judge re fields but from cheek and neck IMHO it looks 63.

DennisH · February 28, 2006 9:54AM

Looks like a liner 63/64 to me. Lustre and eye appeal in hand will probably be the deciding factor.

Bochiman · February 28, 2006 10:18AM

If I were buying it, or selling it, I would grade it a 63 for the obverse (since we don't see the reverse).
I think the TPGS would give it a 64 though.

Steve27 · February 28, 2006 10:34AM

You need to show us the reverse. The obverse looks like a 64 though.

Coxe · February 28, 2006 10:39AM

Problem-free MS63 to me. Might be a VAM-22 (R-5), but I forget if that has a near date. (Leroy doesn't mention that and near dates are common for 98-O.)

coinkat · February 28, 2006 10:40AM

63 tops

bhartman35 · February 28, 2006 10:57AM

Here's the reverse:

BAJJERFAN · February 28, 2006 10:57AM

This is a common date that doesn't mean much until you get to ms66 unless its toned and this one is neither. 63 I would say. But decent enough.

morganbarber · February 28, 2006 10:59AM

Judging from the couple of photos, I am stuck between 63 and 64.

bhartman35 · February 28, 2006 11:11AM

I just checked the PCGS prices. It's not worth slabbing (~ $45-60, depending on if it's 63 or 64), but I still think it's a damn attractive coin. I think this one'll go into my "don't sell" pile.

clw54 · February 28, 2006 11:21AM

It has clash marks on the reverse.

billboat · February 28, 2006 11:33AM

Clash marks---where? Under right wing?

bhartman35 · February 28, 2006 11:33AM

I hadn't noticed it before (and it could well have happened while it's been sitting with the rest of my collection in the cardboard holder), but you're right. I see the marks under the wings. Bummer.

bhartman35 · February 28, 2006 11:35AM

Billboat:

I can see small marks under both the right *and* left wings. It's not glaring, but I can see them.

clw54 · February 28, 2006 11:43AM

I was looking for the clash marks because I recently bought an 1898-O that had them. Yours are a little different.

billboat · February 28, 2006 11:47AM

<< <i>Billboat:

I can see small marks under both the right *and* left wings. It's not glaring, but I can see them. >>

Thanks! Guess my eyes are getting too old--can see something under right wing but that's it.

RedTiger · February 28, 2006 12:21PM

I vote 63. Not worth certifying. Still a nice coin though. If it were mine, I might move to a better holder like an airtite or an Intercept holder, 2x2s aren't that great for long term storage of uncirculated mostly white coins.

SamByrd · February 28, 2006 12:30PM

Nice coin, from the image ms63

bhartman35 · February 28, 2006 1:06PM

<< <i>

<< <i>Billboat:

I can see small marks under both the right *and* left wings. It's not glaring, but I can see them. >>

Thanks! Guess my eyes are getting too old--can see something under right wing but that's it. >>

I don't think the marks under the left wing are perceptible as marks from the pic, because of the lighting. But looking at the actual coin in hand, when I turn it in the light, I can see the indentations, and can see that they're on the coin, not the plastic. The mark under the right wing is a little more noticable in the pic.

cartwheel · March 1, 2006 2:42AM

Looks like a liner 63/64 to me. Lustre and eye appeal in hand will probably be the deciding factor.

I concur!

Cartwheel

Grade this Morgan

Comments

Leave a Comment