Guess the Grade, 1878 8TF, 1886-O Morgan Dollars. **GRADES POSTED**

TorinoCobra71

1878 8TF Morgan Dollar:




1886-O Morgan Dollar:




TorinoCobra71

cmerlo1

1878- MS-65

1886-O AU-58

Both are in ANACS slabs.

Stuart

I agree with CMerlo1's assessment:

1878 MS-65

1886-O AU-58

Both are very attractive!

bigmansam88

1878 - MS-66

1886 - AU Details (Cleaned)

Is it just me or does the 1886 look like it has hairlines all over it?

Bobk

78 MS66PL, 86O, this one is tough, MS64. Bob

Newcomp103

WOW...what a great looking 8TF!! ...65...maybe 66? And yes...I think the 86-O has been cleaned...if what I am seeing are hairlines....but I would say AU details.

DennisH

MS64
AU55

AnkurJ

1878: MS 65 Proof Like

1886: MS 64

relicsncoins

I'll go 64 on the 78, and 53 on the 86.

JJ

doh

I guess it's just the pic, but the 78 looks polished to me. It's definitely unc though. The 86-O is a cleaned AU53/55.

TorinoCobra71

Here are the slabs:





Y'all pretty much nailed the 1886-O it is AU55 Cleaned. You can plainly see the hairlines on it.

Now the 1878 8TF ANACS got totally wrong. AU50 Whizzed, my a$$. this coin is just a straight up UNC GEM. It might get cracked out....I also have a 1881-S that ANACS graded MS61 that is a solid 63 with a shot at 4. It seems since they changed ownership their grading standards are ALL OVER THE PLACE.

TorinoCobra71

CalGold

ANACS got it right on that 8 tail feather. Take a look at the devices, stars and letters. There is not even a trace of mint frost on them anywhere. It has all been removed by some abrasive method. That explains the unnatural look of the coin.

CG

TorinoCobra71

<< <i>ANACS got it right on that 8 tail feather. Take a look at the devices, stars and letters. There is not even a trace of mint frost on them anywhere. It has all been removed by some abrasive method. That explains the unnatural look of the coin.

CG >>



ANACS DID NOT GET IT RIGHT on the 8TF. whizzing leaves behind noticeable hairlines. I have viewed this coin under a 10X Loupe and there are no hairlines on this coin. The coin has UNC details for sure. How did they come up with AU50???? They got it wrong on both accounts.

TC71

bigmansam88

I've heard that ANACS is getting much tougher with grades and is grading perfectly fine coins

as problem coins. I agree with the assessment of the 1886-O, but the 1878 looks WAY too nice for AU.

doh

I think AU50 is way harsh on the 78....and "whizzed" may be the wrong terminology, but the surfaces have something going on. Maybe just overly dipped? I can't tell from the pics.

ziggy29

I think they nailed the '86-O. As for the '78, AU-50 details are absurd. It looks like MS details and perhaps NET AU-50 (if they were still net grading these). No AU-50 has that much detail on the breast feathers and above the ear. Can't comment on the whizzing part without seeing the coin in hand.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

Looking at the 8TF I noticed before I even saw the posted grades that the coin was "not right." ANACS is 100% correct--the coin is whizzed. Resubmitting will just be a waste of money.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

BTW, I believe ANACS got both of these grades 100% correct.

Newcomp103

The pics of the 1878 sure make it look like they got it wrong Gary! I dont see rub on any part of that coin!

sweetwilliet

"I think they nailed the '86-O. As for the '78, AU-50 details are absurd. It looks like MS details and perhaps NET AU-50 (if they were still net grading these). No AU-50 has that much detail on the breast feathers and above the ear. Can't comment on the whizzing part without seeing the coin in hand. "

Basically, I agree with all he said.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

<< <i> I dont see rub on any part of that coin! >>



That's because any signs of rub have been whizzed away.

TorinoCobra71

<< <i>I think AU50 is way harsh on the 78....and "whizzed" may be the wrong terminology, but the surfaces have something going on. Maybe just overly dipped? I can't tell from the pics. >>



I totally agree with this statement. I am Thinking that the coin might be overdipped or could have been wiped at one time, But the coin does not look whizzed in any way, IMHO.

TC71

GoldenEyeNumismatics

<< <i>

<< <i>I think AU50 is way harsh on the 78....and "whizzed" may be the wrong terminology, but the surfaces have something going on. Maybe just overly dipped? I can't tell from the pics. >>



I totally agree with this statement. I am Thinking that the coin might be overdipped or could have been wiped at one time, But the coin does not look whizzed in any way, IMHO.

TC71 >>



It looks exactly how a coin whizzed with a thicker wire would look. The bands of luster do not differentiate between the fields and the devices, there is no frost, and it has an overall unnatural look.