Morgan Experts - 4 common dates (NOT)
GAB
Posts: 641 ✭
These coins are raw, just lifted out of their albums for these pictures.
Please comment on grades, VAMS?, need (or not) for authentiction/certification etc.
They are not mine, so you can say whatever comes to mind ...
(I know very little about Morgans!)
Thanks in advance:
Please comment on grades, VAMS?, need (or not) for authentiction/certification etc.
They are not mine, so you can say whatever comes to mind ...
(I know very little about Morgans!)
Thanks in advance:
Golf time!!
0
Comments
it more than any VAM (at that time) had ever sold for in the entire Morgan dollar series; about 40K is what he wanted for the coin. He looked greedy and foolish - you can't have both a full DMPL premium and a full VAM
premium....if you get my drift.
You probably have a spitting eagle on the 1891-CC, but again while interesting, doesn't add much if any premium.
1889-CC XF40. Cleaned?
1893-S XF40 Cleaned again. Luster is not right.
The other CC coins look MS62
Free Trial
I also think the 1893-S looks more suspicious than the 1889-CC, which could sneak into a holder.
None of those four dates have any VAM that carry a premium.
The only two dates that really need to be in holders to bring the most money are the first two; the CCs in their grades will be fine raw. I don't hold out much hope for the '93-S, but I think the '89-CC has a chance.
As for grades,
AU det. cleaned 89CC
62+ 91CC
60/61 92CC
1893-S XF40 Cleaned again. Luster is not right.
The other CC coins look MS62
that's about the crowd i'm in too
money coins regardless
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
the 89-cc will likely grade 40 at best- I don't see that one getting the benefit of a 45
I don't think the 93-s will grade based on the image
The 91-cc is decent and is a minimum 62 and even 3 is possible
the 92-cc looks MS- 61 seems right
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
in a very few posts everything i could or want to say has been said
only thing i add is if all coins are authentic, they are nice to own and probably above average for the average collection
if your 93-s proves out, you have a nice little stash of some cc's
.
although the 91-cc is IMO a 62, the 92-cc is awful choppy, dont see it getting more than a 60, maybe a good day 61.
I wish I could see the 93-s in hand, although cleaned a bit, there may be a chance this holders, at least based on others I have seen get the holder? Course , the grading services are much tighter now that past "recent" years.
93S XF
91CC 64
92CC 63/64
IMO, the 89cc has some luster hidden in devices but cleaned rather badly. My guess is a no grade but would net it at 40.
I agree with previous comments on the others.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Check for the rabbit ears on that 1893-S... only one die for that coin and that is the key marker. >>
i know a few diagnostics for the 1 obverse and 2 reverse dies, but the rabbit ears designation is eluding me. would you enlighten?
.
45
40
63
62
1889-CC XF40. Cleaned?
1893-S XF40 Cleaned again. Luster is not right.
The other CC coins look MS62
AL
<< <i>I agree with this
1889-CC XF40. Cleaned?
1893-S XF40 Cleaned again. Luster is not right.
The other CC coins look MS62
AL >>
ill agree with that as well
My thoughts before I posted this were pretty much as reflected in the thread.
My advice to the owner was to submit them to PCGS - and see what happens.
At least if some net grade, they will be authenticated (or not, and he will at least know!)
I believe all the coins are authentic, but it is not a sure thing based on some of
your comments. The images of the 89-CC and 93-S are pretty much spot on with how they look,
but the 91 and 92 CC's definitely look better in hand. ( Being a Bust half guy, I don't have that
much experience imaging coins with this much luster). I personally believe the 91-CC has a shot at
MS-64, but most likely a 63. The 92-CC I had as a hopeful 63, but more likely 62. I had both
the 93S and 89CC at XF45, questionable toning.
Thanks again!
Please update this thread if possible.
<< <i>I, and a few others I`m sure, would like to know the turn out if submitted to PCGS.
Please update this thread if possible. >>
Will do. They may be walked through at the ANA,
if it's not too expensive. Anyone else hear about a "discount"
by PCGS at the Philly show?
My guess is they might come back `Genuine`
Still, that wouldnt be such a terrible thing,considering...
<< <i>1&2 have been whizzed to be certain. >>
Can you please elaborate?
theres been lots of chat about the subject here over the years
and many examples shown. so,no offense,but those look
to fall into that catagory.
<< <i>whizzed means polished or buffed in some way.
theres been lots of chat about the subject here over the years
and many examples shown. so,no offense,but those look
to fall into that catagory. >>
Actually, polished and buffed is different from whizzed. Whizzed is specifically referring to a coin that has been, well, whizzed. Whizzing involves a high speed brush that actually pushes the metal away from the central point of application of the brush. Generally you can see buildup of metal around the devices of the coin. Whizzing typically leaves an unnatural glowing luster that is not at all the typical cartwheel one would expect to observe on a lustrous coin. Here is one: Link