the morgan date with the most fugly coins

GoldenEyeNumismatics · January 31, 2007 1:33PM

I'm gonna have to say 92 S, 93 S, or '03 S since so many are dipped to hell in an effort for upgrades since there is so much spread betweem XF/AU and AU50/53, 53/55, etc

mirabela · January 31, 2007 1:35PM

When was the last time you saw a 96-O that looked good?

clw54 · January 31, 2007 2:02PM

Seems to me there was a thread about one of the 1895 dollars where most were said to look bad, but I don't remember the mint.

DennisH · January 31, 2007 2:44PM

I'd have to go along with 1893-S, on account of they seem to look bad in all grades. The 1889-CC is close as well. With the 1896-O, at least many of the XF-under coins are original. Mint state ones do occasionally come nice; I owned an MS62 that was actually a screamer in terms of lustre.

rhedden · January 31, 2007 3:14PM

1884-S is a good one for harshly whizzed "Borderline Unc." coins that are actually polished AUs.

Coxe · January 31, 2007 3:28PM

'84-S is my first choice. Though some AU58 surprises arise very infrequently and there is a single spectacular high grade specimen, nearly the entire extant population in all grades is truly awful.

'01-S can be pretty bad too. In fact, all of the 20th century SF Morgans are often bad.

BAJJERFAN · January 31, 2007 9:49PM

<< <i>1884-S is a good one for harshly whizzed "Borderline Unc." coins that are actually polished AUs. >>

I think he was talking about coins as released by the mint; any whizzed coin will qualify.

SmallSizedGuy · January 31, 2007 10:08PM

1880-O is another date. So many sliders out there.

messydesk · January 31, 2007 10:17PM

1901 and 1921-S. Even legitimate BU coins are ugly. The typical 1921-S has die erosion that would put bust halves to shame.

rhedden · February 1, 2007 3:54AM

I think he was talking about coins as released by the mint; any whizzed coin will qualify.

OK, but the 1884-S has to be the King for whizzed and altered coins made to look Unc.

Based on ugly coins straight from the mint, I change my nominations to the 1891-O and 1892-O for truly awful strikes; and the 1894-P, 1896-O, 1897-O, and especially 1901-P for dull, lifeless "BU" coins that have the luster of an XF-45.

rec78 · February 1, 2007 4:05AM

1899 seems to be a date i cannot find with appropriate luster and lack of a lot of bag marks. There are a lot of BU 1899's around however not too many have great eye appeal that i can see--even a lot of tpg graded MS64's aren't very appealing. 1904 is an elusive date also--lots of ms63's around but not many eye appealing full luster coins.

anablep · February 3, 2007 1:20AM

From what I've personally seen, I'd say 1921-S followed by 21-D and 21.
I'd agree with 1904 too.

Haven't handled the 93-S, 84-S or 89-CC at all to really know.

As for 1899, well, I like the luster & look of mine:

IrishMike · February 3, 2007 1:35AM

Straight from the mint I'd have to agree with messydesk, the 01 and 21-S are usually very ugly.

Omega · February 3, 2007 2:03AM

21-S gets my vote.

BobaFett72 · February 3, 2007 3:39AM

Anablep, thats a gorgeous coin!

TONEDDOLLARS · February 3, 2007 4:53AM

Hows this 96-o

roadrunner · February 3, 2007 7:30AM

Sweet 96-0 TD.

roadrunner

Numismanic · February 3, 2007 8:46AM

<< <i>Based on ugly coins straight from the mint, I change my nominations to the 1891-O and 1892-O for truly awful strikes; >>

Mine must be one of them First Strikes™.

the morgan date with the most fugly coins

Comments

Leave a Comment