opinions on this 1899 morgan

Vet

braddick

A local dealer friend loves this date. Low mintage. He thinks it's a sleeper and buys up this date at every opportunity. It's difficult to disagree with him!
Yours, with a little issue on the rim (at about 4:00 on the obverse) coupled with the tics/nics (typical for the grade) would probably grade out MS63'ish or so. That's also taking into account, although the luster appears washed out, that's just a fault of the photo and not the coin.

JJM

63 , solid rev?

lkenefic

I'd say 63 as well...and I agree with braddick about the rim at 4 o'clock...is it a rim hit?

L

TorinoCobra71

Mint State Sixty TWO!

TorinoCobra71

Vet

The rim bump is so slight it's hard to see without magnifaction. I was thinking 62 maybe 63 . I sent it in to pcgs came back in body bag, altered surface.

clw54

<< <i>The rim bump is so slight it's hard to see without magnifaction. I was thinking 62 maybe 63 . I sent it in to pcgs came back in body bag, altered surface. >>


I wonder what's alterered about it.

Coxe

R-6 variety, VAM-6A, pitted DO/DOLLAR. See my wiki write-up on this variety.

Grade? 63, on a good day.

sweetwilliet

Looks like a 62 to me, bodybag? can't see why.

cape

looks overdipped

mcheath

looks overdipped to me.,



edited to add: cape you sly devil, beat me to it

Stuart

Vet: I assume that the photo was taken in direct sunlight which may partly account for the apparent dull mint luster that others have already noted. I agree that the coin just does not look right.

For example note how the field texture is smoother and different inside the wreath on the reverse, vs. the rougher textured are outside the wreath. Thare is a cloudy patch suggestive of surface alteration within the wreath to the viewer's right (eagle's left), just inside of the letters "ERICA" in America.

I am sorry to hear that the coin was BB'd..

Vet

The mint luster is lacking. All the rest came back as expected so 7 out of 8 not to bad. Thanks for all the comments.

gemini12398

Surface on miss liberty's cheek looks streaky, so I wonder if they thought someone cleaned it in someway

I looked long and hard for a '99, and finally bought one from stack's, raw that went pcgs 64

they are really difficult to find nice, usually baggy

I, too, think it is an underrated coin, esp for its low mintage

clw54

There have been threads on this date in the past where people said that many were minted in 1900 and those showed up in the 1900 mintage records. I looked in a book about Morgans and it didn't say anything about 1900 mintage records, but it did say there were a lot out there. The scarcity is probably because people are hoarding them.

Stuart

I was very pleased when I was able to pick up this beautiful 1899 PCGS MS-63 DMPL Morgan Dollar for my PL/DMPL Registry Set, which looks very high end end in hand for an MS-63.

1899 PCGS MS-63 DMPL Morgan Dollar

gemini12398

man, that's a beauty

I really like that one, looks pq

TwoSides2aCoin

Altered surfaces means the original skin is missing. One would normally see "luster breaks" in a coin with this much detail. You will notice this coin is NOT void of it's typical bag marks, but it is void of luster breaks and luster.
It looks like the old fashioned toothpaste trick. It may have been submitted earlier and someone tried to remove PVC, but forgot the damage that a paste or dip would do to the luster.
The lower left coin is an unaltered 1899, the 1880 has definitely been cleaned, altered, dipped or treated with a jewelry cleaner of some sort. I hope you can see from my lousy pics.

291fifth

Looks dipped to death from the photo.