Think this is a 1895-S ?

JJM

is the third number 8 or a 9?

STONE

Looks like a 9, but tough to tell from the pic.

Nice pickup and I bet it was cheap

greghansen

IMO (with about 95% certainty) it is a '95-S. I base that primarily upon the shape of the top of the numerals. The '8' has a flatter top. The '9' is more rounded. If you look at a regular 1895, you can fairly plainly see the difference between the shape of the tops of those two digits. So I say its a 1895-S. Congratulations.

greghansen

Woops. Sorry. Meant for that to be a PM.

Dog97

Yes, the curve of the top loop is consistant with the Type-2 9.

lkenefic

looks like a '95 to me...L

Coxe

Well, I thought initially 1895-S VAM-4. The mint mark looked high for me, high for all of that date. Then I thought it looked like a worn break on the left wreath consistent with the 1885-S VAM-7A. However, the mint mark is also high for that. It was an oddball contrarian look anyway. The digit appears to be a 9, normal to far date position. The S looks high to me, but the wear might be throwing me off. Slight right tilt. Might be a VAM-4. Look to the left outside of the upper loop of the mint mark.

I love trying to attribute very worn Morgans. It is much harder when it is not in hand.

JJM

<< <i>Well, I thought initially 1895-S VAM-4. The mint mark looked high for me, high for all of that date. Then I thought it looked like a worn break on the left wreath consistent with the 1885-S VAM-7A. However, the mint mark is also high for that. It was an oddball contrarian look anyway. The digit appears to be a 9, normal to far date position. The S looks high to me, but the wear might be throwing me off. Slight right tilt. Might be a VAM-4. Look to the left outside of the upper loop of the mint mark.

I love trying to attribute very worn Morgans. It is much harder when it is not in hand. >>



wow, pretty in depth, thx !