Recent Morgan NEWPS - grades and comments up

blu62vette

Would welcome some opinions/thoughts on these:

First from Golden here on the forum:



NGC fatty






This one is a gold PCI holder. Would welcome grade thoughts on this one as I have my own.

DennisH

Todd: I thought you were going to lay off the '79-S !!

62DMPL on the '81-S.

garrynot

Great coins Todd!

nwcoast

Beautiful coins and photography!!!

ricko

As always... great photography... some nice Morgans too... Cheers, RickO

DoubleEagle59

65/66pl
64pl
64pl
63dmpl

HighRelief

I would say 61 DMPL on the 81-S and that 84-O has some very interesting color to it.

jayPem

I like that 98 ! And would say 63 DMPL for the 81....I'm guessing the chatter may be exagerated by the large images.

blu62vette

<< <i>Todd: I thought you were going to lay off the '79-S !!

62DMPL on the '81-S. >>



This is laying off on the 79-S, I haven't bought one for a month or so until now.

Rodebaugh

My thoughts:

1884-O MS64+
1879-S MS64PL
1898 MS63
1881-S MS62DMPL

What did you grade them at?

blu62vette

Here are the grades:

1884-O PCGS 65
1879-S PCGS 64+PL
1898 NGC 63DMPL
1881-S PCI 63DMPL

THE 1884-O is very clean, I wonder why it if only a 65 but see some ticks on the reverse that may hold it back. The 79-S and 98 seem correct. The 1881-S could be a 62 or 63, really much deeper mirrors that most for the year. But if you look in the field in front of the neck you can see some whisky lines. Looks like a wipe of some sort that will prevent a crossover. A complete shame. The lines are hard to see in the image as a flaw. I was going to post larger images to make that more clear.

fivecents

<< <i>THE 1884-O is very clean, I wonder why it if only a 65 but see some ticks on the reverse that may hold it back. >>

I might be held back to MS65 because of the subdued luster.

Rodebaugh

<< <i>Here are the grades:

1884-O PCGS 65
1879-S PCGS 64+PL
1898 NGC 63DMPL
1881-S PCI 63DMPL

THE 1884-O is very clean, I wonder why it if only a 65 but see some ticks on the reverse that may hold it back. The 79-S and 98 seem correct. The 1881-S could be a 62 or 63, really much deeper mirrors that most for the year. But if you look in the field in front of the neck you can see some whisky lines. Looks like a wipe of some sort that will prevent a crossover. A complete shame. The lines are hard to see in the image as a flaw. I was going to post larger images to make that more clear. >>



Thanks for posting grades. That was fun.

blu62vette

<< <i>

<< <i>Here are the grades:

1884-O PCGS 65
1879-S PCGS 64+PL
1898 NGC 63DMPL
1881-S PCI 63DMPL

THE 1884-O is very clean, I wonder why it if only a 65 but see some ticks on the reverse that may hold it back. The 79-S and 98 seem correct. The 1881-S could be a 62 or 63, really much deeper mirrors that most for the year. But if you look in the field in front of the neck you can see some whisky lines. Looks like a wipe of some sort that will prevent a crossover. A complete shame. The lines are hard to see in the image as a flaw. I was going to post larger images to make that more clear. >>



Thanks for posting grades. That was fun. >>



You are welcome. Now explain your sigline!!! What Morgan is that?

Rodebaugh

<< <i>
You are welcome. Now explain your sigline!!! What Morgan is that? >>



It's my favorite morgan. I'll post a new thread with a description.