I'd like to see this Morgan cracked out and sent to PCGS

lava

Link

What grade do you think PCGS gives this one in 2006?

DennisH

Wow! That coin sure doesn't photograph well. It looks more like AU58.

lava

That's what I thought Dennis. Maybe a lot could be attributed to a poor strike, but I don't know how you could give this coin the benefit of the doubt in the absence of mint state luster, and this coin is described as having subdued surfaces with an overlay of gray patina, which sounds like another way of saying the coin does not retain any mint state luster. Besides, I would attribute some of the softness to wear. `01s have soft strikes, but this one is pathetic if in fact it has no wear.

BECOKA

All I know is I don't trust NGC anymore. The last few I have cracked out came back at least 2 grades lower. I tried crossing before the crackout so there were at least two attempts. MS61 usually ends up 58.

BECOKA

I should add that I know to buy the coin and not the holder. I need to listen to my own advice and look a little more carefully.

Steve27

Looks correctly graded to me. It has a very weak strike and a bunch of long but not deep lines across the coin.

dragon

It's not the greatest pic, but that's how the 1901 comes, weak strike, a dull or dipped out looking steel grey lustre, very marginal eye appeal, etc. This date and a few others are some of the worst looking Morgans in the entire series. I've actually seen worse looking coins then that one in MS grades.

messydesk

1901 Morgans are probably the most universally ugly Morgan dollars in grades above EF. Even a 1921-S is attractive once in a while, but not a 1901. If you sent this one to PCGS I would not be surprised if it came back in a body-bag for being thumbed. I don't see wear on the reverse, but the dark spot ("scene of the alleged crime") on the obverse on one of the first spots to see wear has me concerned. Perhaps it's only there to hide "cabinet friction" that is acceptible in small amounts on sub-63 Morgan dollars.

bhartman35

On the reverse, in particular, I see areas that look more like wear than strike to me:

1) Left wingtip
2) The "A" in "DOLLAR" looks wrong compared to the other letters.
3) I can't tell if it's just reflected light, but there looks like wear on the inside of the wings.

On the obverse:

1) The top of the bonnet looks worn.
2) Ms. Liberty is definitely having a bad hair day.
3) There appears to be details left in the cotton on her head and in the leaves, leading me to think that it's not such a weak strike, after all. At least - not enough to justify the appearance of the rest of the coin.

IrishMike

Yes 1901's are usually ugly and this coin is not one I would bid on unless I saw it in hand.

cladking

This is one unattractive coin but I doubt it has wear. It looks dipped out but some dates do come with very subdued luster.

SamByrd

MS63 chance of MS62 its a little too white looking in my opinion

Coxe

Lousy pics; remind me of Goldberg catalogue ones that drive me nuts. Strike is weak which itself should limit the grade to 63. Looks like an old dipping, though that could just be the image. The neck looks rubbed. I am guessing it is a slider that got in an MS slab.

numonebuyer

My 1901 AU-50 is also not very attractive...

BAJJERFAN

Not too bad for a 58.

bhartman35

It looks to me like either of the previously posted coins have a lot more detail than the one in the auction.

BillJones

The coin appears to be properly graded to me.

As a date 1901-P dollars are noted for weak strikes and poor luster. It's hard to understand why, after years of making great to decent dollars, the Philadelphia mint went south like this, but they did.

This is coin that only a Morgan dollar lover can love. It is a real Choice Unc., and although it might have been dipped, which could have dulled it a little, it probably had no more luster when it dropped from the dies than what it has now.

A reasonable alternative is to look for a very choice AU-58. I've seen them around, and they can look very nice in a Mint State Morgan set. You will also save a few thousand bucks too, although you need to gravitate toward the Gray Sheet MS-60 price, which is over $1,000. You find anything decent for the AU-50 price, which is around $300.

P.S. Those are shopping for 1895-O dollars will find much the same thing. Many Mint State graded pieces are ugly and don't look as nice as some of the really choice AU pices.

keets

and away we go...................again....................with everyone who knows you can't accurately grade from an online picture grading from an online picture. apparently the guys who know the series and the problematic 1901-P issue accept the worded description and judge the picture accordingly.

my impression of the auction and the coin is that the lighting for the photograph is terrible and the result is a coin which is poorly represented. Superior has it's plethora of problems, don't they?? shoddy listing at eBay with many documented mistakes and what appears to be lackluster in-house record keeping and customer relations. lately they would seem to need a good, top notch photographer for their many listings.

who's up for the job?? if i had the skill, the initiative and the freedom to move i'd certainly have my resume in the mail along with a portfolia and solid references. this is a job waiting to happen for the right forum member.

goose3

I'd much rather prefer to be a stay-at-home grader.

ziggy29

For a condition rarity like this, they'd probably find a reason to '58' it.

Put an O mint mark on it and it probably makes 63 or even possibly 64 on a good day.

TorinoCobra71

<< <i>Wow! That coin sure doesn't photograph well. It looks more like AU58. >>



I Concur with that Opinion!

TorinoCobra71