New Morgan I received today, What will it Grade?

KyBoy

Just got this 1896o today and wonder what it would grade?

Kenny in Ky

Wolf359

AU55

sweetwilliet

I'll go AU53.

cheezhed

55

RWB

EF cleaned

Manorcourtman

55

GSAcollector

AU 53

DUIGUY

Weak strike, MS61

coinkat

Clearly not original- AU50 tops

AUandAG

AU 55

bob

coinguy1

AU55.

Rampage

I agree with the aforementioned AU55 grade assessments.

Longacre

Dipped out net 58. No Plus, no sticker.

pheh

AU Details / Improperly Cleaned

or

Genuine Not Gradable / 92

KyBoy

Not sure why some think it has been cleaned, unless it is the overhead lighting at my table that makes the pictures appear that way?
Kenny

GoldenEyeNumismatics

au55

JupitarCoins

I'll say au58 and I know thats a stretch.

divecchia

AU50...

Donato

fivecents

AU double nickels.

RWB

The oblique photo seemed to show typical cleaning residue.

MFH

I'm with the AU 55 group

asheland

AU53

DennisH

AU55. Nice coin.

kurtdog

She's messed with poor thing and a little flat luster-wise for it. Notwithstanding that, she's still very marketable. AU50-55 off these pics, with more circulation wear on the obverse than on the reverse.

Rampage

It does not appear to have flat luster to me. It looks like a lightly circulated coin with no problems. AU55 is the grade. Again, nice coin, but not uncirculated.

lordmarcovan

Put me on the AU55 bandwagon.

KyBoy

In comparing to several NGC 55, 58, 62 at 5x etc and placing side by side it appears to be a 60, but you guys seem to be in the same area. I will slot it at 58 in my album. Not to far to go for a full set of morgans!

Rampage

<< <i>In comparing to several NGC 55, 58, 62 at 5x etc and placing side by side it appears to be a 60, but you guys seem to be in the same area. I will slot it at 58 in my album. Not to far to go for a full set of morgans! >>


Was your comnparison of other 1896-O Morgans, or other dates? You should only compare same dates/mint marks. Particularly, this date is a tough date and all grading services are tough on this date. Same goes for the 1884S and 1886O, for example. I see what appears to be rub marks on the obverse, so that will knock it out of the MS category. If you truly feel the coin is MS, then perhaps a better picture is needed in order to judge better.

TorinoCobra71

AU55

KyBoy

Here is a NGC58. The photos are smaller than mine, but you should be able to compare. Notice the M on unum compared to mine or the right wing and breast feathers compared to mine and the hair right above the ear compared to mine. Clearly shows more wear than mine and it is a 58.








Kenny

golfer72

<< <i>EF cleaned >>

EF? It may be cleaned but no way is that EF! Show me the wear that equates to an EF coin.

Rampage

<< <i>Here is a NGC58. The photos are smaller than mine, but you should be able to compare. Notice the M on unum compared to mine or the right wing and breast feathers compared to mine and the hair right above the ear compared to mine. Clearly shows more wear than mine and it is a 58.
Kenny >>


Kenny, you are mistaking a soft strike for wear. Your coin has an above average strike (which is great), but that does not mean it is uncirculated. If you have not already done so, I suggest picking up the Morgan Dollar book that was put out by Redbook. You can read up on all the details in that book about the strike qualities of all Morgan dates.

You could send your to PCGS and see what it grades. I still say AU55. The AU58 coin you have pictured looks more like a 55 to me, too. If you do send your coin in, be sure to get rid of the apparent PVC damage on the lower reverse.

Good luck.

Rampage

As previously mentioned, your coin may indeed grade AU58, but in order to judge more correctly, a better picture is needed. Based on your provided images, the coin looks AU55.

kurtdog

<< <i>Here is a NGC58. The photos are smaller than mine, but you should be able to compare. Notice the M on unum compared to mine or the right wing and breast feathers compared to mine and the hair right above the ear compared to mine. Clearly shows more wear than mine and it is a 58. >>

Kenny the hair above the ear is due in part to the lack of detail in this series. Compare the hair above the eye, there's where your wear is. It's still a very nice-looking coin, and your reverse pics don't show very much I'd be inclined to want to call wear. Its surface does look a touch "off," though; maybe cleaned, maybe the aftermath of an old dip, Nonetheless, no biggie, though, still a very market acceptable hard date out of this Mint.

RWB

It may be cleaned but no way is that EF!

Yep, EF. It might be above average, but it is still EF.

An AU coin has a slight trace of wear on the high points and typically shows slight disturbance of luster in the fields. Anything more extensive is not AU, but EF. The comments about "AU-50" or "AU-55" illustrate how deeply some have bought into the fiction of numeric grading, and how badly standards have eroded.

It is understood that most here will disagree - that is fine. Each has his own perspective.

kurtdog

<< <i>An AU coin has a slight trace of wear on the high points and typically shows slight disturbance of luster in the fields. Anything more extensive is not AU, but EF. The comments about "AU-50" or "AU-55" illustrate how deeply some have bought into the fiction of numeric grading, and how badly standards have eroded. >>

I think these days they call that "progress."

Anywho, FWIW, today I just call anything AU that I used to call EF back when AU wasn't yet in our vocabulary. Why do I put a number on it? Why does a dog stick its head out of the window in a moving vehicle? It just seems like the right thing to do...

KyBoy

Have posted new pictures now that I have some some better lighting.




Kenny

kurtdog

<< <i>Have posted new pictures now that I have some some better lighting. >>

OK, I'll be the first to say it, it's in better shape than I thought. The main drawback still seems to me to be the "muted" look. Off these new pics, though, I'm more inclined to want to throw the soft areas off on the strike, and call this, technically, a low-end MS. I don't know how the "market" would take that, though.

LindeDad

Try a acetone rinse on it I think there is a thin layer of PVC on it. One of your images shows it mostly on the reverse.
No matter what it will not hurt it and it might bring out some hidden luster.

coinkat

It seems that the original pictures were edited out of the thread-

please consider providing an explanation as to why the original pictures were deleted- adding more is great and encouraged- deleting pictures that folks relied on to offer an opinion is... well... not something that seems reasonable or fair if you are seeking opinions

magikbilly

Switched pics? Nice.
It is a 55 at best, no 58 from what I can see just for the lifeless luster. Further, i don't like it. I see a lot of difference in the NGC 58 and this.

Best,
Eric

coinkat

The original picture was replaced in the original post-

the original picture remains in the thread further down- I stand corrected on that point-

The coin is not original- it clearly has been enhanced-

pheh

I stand by my AU Details/Improperly Cleaned -or- Genuine Not Gradable/92.

Are you planning on sending it in?

Rampage

I still say AU55. Definately not the same pictures, because the first set of pictures showed the PVC damage quite well. One can hardly see it in these pictures. Also, when I first opened the thread before ever replying to it, there was a picture of the edge of the coin. That was deleted, too.