1879-S Morgan I probably paid to much for it but.....

coinsarefun

I hope the color is as I imagine it may be. I like the contrast and toning and if I did pay to much I have to curb my appetite for widgets.

What do you think?

This is the sellers pictures and he said its DMPL
but I don't think so

Ebay

savoyspecial

i really like the reverse

greg

ElKevvo

Neat looking reverse...the obverse has a few to many hits to justify the 65 grade, maybe a 63/64 but it is hard to tell from the photos. I agree with ya about the DMPL...reverse maybe but not the obverse.

Thanks for sharing! My grading set is '79 S's...I need to get a few more. I have a bad appetite for widgets also :^(...

K

coinsarefun

<< <i>Neat looking reverse...the obverse has a few to many hits to justify the 65 grade, maybe a 63/64 but it is hard to tell from the photos. I agree with ya about the DMPL...reverse maybe but not the obverse.

Thanks for sharing! My grading set is '79 S's...I need to get a few more. I have a bad appetite for widgets also :^(...

K >>





I think maybe when I see it in hand it may have a chance at PL but I really like the toning

DRUNNER

So hard to tell much from the pix. Looks original and nice. Many times the DMPL gets a touch of slack in grading due to every hit showing up so obviously.

64, shot 65.

Drunner

Meltdown

I think it looks great. Nice original crusty toning and frosty devices. I'd like to see it in hand. I just bought a 1880-S that looks very similar. I have a weak spot for widgets as well.

lordmarcovan

Not quite DMPL, I'd say, but definitely PL.

Like others said, I like the reverse. The obverse is OK.

64 for sure, I would say, but 65 is a longshot with the marks on the cheek and neck.

If it were a coin *I* submitted, most TPGs would 62 or 63 it.

tradedollarnut

Looks like a 62 at best with bad dip residue toning. You guys should quit trying to cherrypick these bottom feeding self slabbers - it only encourages them when they move their coins.

coinsarefun

<< <i>I think it looks great. Nice original crusty toning and frosty devices. I'd like to see it in hand. I just bought a 1880-S that looks very similar. I have a weak spot for widgets as well. >>




I remember your's I like it very much. I was thinking if it doesn't stand a chance at grading it will look great in my Dansco

coinsarefun

<< <i>Looks like a 62 at best with bad dip residue toning. You guys should quit trying to cherrypick these bottom feeding self slabbers - it only encourages them when they move their coins. >>




Can you please explain how you know that its toning is from dip residue?
I really don't know how to tell that, so I know next time.

stman

<< <i>What do you think? >>



I'll be nice and just say I think you could do much better with your money. But, if you like it, who am I to say.
If you want more of an opinion, just let me know.

coinsarefun

<< <i>

<< <i>What do you think? >>



I'll be nice and just say I think you could do much better with your money. But, if you like it, who am I to say.
If you want more of an opinion, just let me know. >>





please go on

stman

Nah, please don't make me do it.

coinsarefun

<< <i>Nah, please don't make me do it. >>





Why? I am here to learn. I am still new. And where else to learn but on a $80 mistake

Myqqy

Nah, please don't make me do it

Do it!

For whatever it's worth, I think you could have done a little better with the money spent- I just bought a 79-s morgan in an older 64pl ngc holder that's really strong for the grade, and I paid $80. I don't like the splotchiness of the toning on this one, which is probably what tdn is referring to when he mentions the dip residue toning...

stman

I doubt the coin is anywhere near "65" going by the image provided. I doubt it is DMPL. I understand hits will show more on PL surfaces but in the old days we would call this BU, or beat up, or butt ugly. I don't think it's "crusty" in the least and looks to be a mottled mess from a dip and retone at the least. Having said that, I still think you did better than this fingerprinted mottled mess in "67" Haha. And look what they have attached to it.
Granted it's a bad image, and I'm sure the fingerprints would show much better with a nicer image. Superb Gem Amazing Heh Heh

Edit to add, I really am trying to help and like I said earlier I believe you could do much better with the money spent on this....

Myqqy

I would REALLY like to see that CAC'ed 67 morgan in hand....

coinsarefun

<< <i>I doubt the coin is anywhere near "65" going by the image provided. I doubt it is DMPL. I understand hits will show more on PL surfaces but in the old days we would call this BU, or beat up, or butt ugly. I don't think it's "crusty" in the least and looks to be a mottled mess from a dip and retone at the least.

<< <i>



I agree it will not grade 65 and not DMPL. but for some reason I think it may be a bad image. But I have been wrong too many times than I care to remember
But I also thank you for your opinion

stman

No problem and hope it works for you. There is a return option, if you don't like it.

coinsarefun

<< <i>No problem and hope it works for you. There is a return option, if you don't like it. >>




If I get it

Myqqy

The cool thing about morgan widgets is that there are always more out there to find, if the one you get doesn't really stack up- there are lots of PL morgans that are reasonably priced that will knock your socks off...

coinsarefun

<< <i>The cool thing about morgan widgets is that there are always more out there to find, if the one you get doesn't really stack up- there are lots of PL morgans that are reasonably priced that will knock your socks off... >>





I am goin to try to put together a set of 4 DMPL Morgans. But I will buy them slabbed. I am putting various sets together. And, I think this one may go to into the album

I do agree widgets are great fun

Arizonadesertrat

From the pics, I think that this one is a 62-63, but not a DMPL (and you paid too much). It's always a crap shoot when buying a coin on a sight-unseen basis, particularly when there is a large difference in value between 'ordinary', PL, and DMPL Morgans in a given grade.

Real DMPLs tend to look scruffy to me in any grade less than MS64, because the mirror-like surfaces amplify contact marks and other imperfections. When assessing the merits of any Morgan dollar, remember that the cheek is the prime focus as far as contact marks are concerned---look for coins that have relatively clean cheeks. If you are not sure, get a copy of 'How to Grade U.S. Coins' by James Halperin; this book has lots of photos of Morgan dollars in MS grades.

When you receive the coin, hold it perpendicular to a sheet of print and see how far you can read the writing. If there is a local coin shop with DMPLs/PLs in stock, take your coin and compare it with these. Also look carefully at certified DMPLs/PLs and 'ordinary' Morgans and note the differences in luster.

I would not bother to send this coin in for certification. Call this one a learning experience.

[Edited to clear out typos]

options26

<< <i>Looks like a 62 at best with bad dip residue toning. You guys should quit trying to cherrypick these bottom feeding self slabbers - it only encourages them when they move their coins. >>