Grade opinion for 1892-O Morgan..........

DoubleEagle59

Raw 1892-O Morgan.

Same coin under different light angles.

Your grade opinion is appreciated......

coinkat

A flat strike even for this date... I am thinking 62 as the second image really did not help the cause

CoinZealot

AU Details

AUandAG

64, like a lot of 92-O Morgans the strike is lacking. Looks every bit of 65 but doubt that
PCGS would grant it based on the soft strike.



bob

BustHalfBrian

UNC-Details

MsMorrisine

Nice cheek

Weird coloring

Can't venture a sure choice of au over ms.

djdilliodon

AU details/Questionable color

indeetlib

Unc. but looks like it might have some PVC residue that needs to come off.

Clean fields but I can't see it being better than a 63 given the roller marks and weak strike.

Originality

I'm thinking questionable color or altered surfaces

Vbowling299

au58

nwcoast

<< <i>au58 >>





Lack of breast feather detail and curls above the ear wear...might that be the result of a weak strike? Don't know this series intimately enough to make that call. Coinkat is a fantastic grader! He might have nailed it!

Otherwise, looks pretty clean and lacking hits.
Color and luster hard to evaluate given lighting of the photos... As a result, kind of a wild guess!

MsMorrisine

Ok little roller marks on cheeks says ms to me,

But where in ms land?

BillJones

It is not possible to give a definitive answer concerning this coin from photos, but my take on it would be questionable toning with a possibility of altered surfaces. The strike is quite flat, and I am guessing that the mint luster, if there is any, is on the dull side. These factors make a coin like this hard to grade, even in person.

ColonelJessup

<< <i>UNC-Details >>



+1

QC.

MsMorissine - I think I get what you're saying, but roller marks can be found on non-MS coins.

treybenedict

looks like au/unc details to me

PTVETTER

Looks more AU than UNC
Something is going on with that coin!
The fields look so clean but, the high points show some friction or rub.

commoncents05

AU/Unc slider definitely artificially toned. The smoky haze is a dead giveaway.

-Paul

DennisH

AU58 and messed with.

roadrunner

63 on marks/luster but the key is whether it's been messed with. These can grade MS63/64 with weak strikes....which is most of them.

coinkat

I suppose I am running contrary on this one and I chalk that up to the photos. As troubling as the image may look, I suspect the bigger issue is with the photography and lighting-please don't be offended DoubleEagle59.

I still see this as an MS coin- it just has limitations.

If it were AU, there would be signs in the fields which do not seem present even though images were taken at various angles. I seriously doubt there was an attempt to hide hairlines or signs of wear.

The 1892-O is not as problematic as other O Morgan dates in terms of the strike. The quality is better than the 1888-o through 1891-o dates.

Cougar1978

CH AU - would put in 2x2 and price at $75.

I sold a similar piece of like quality about 2 mo ago from my table at a show for that. The guy was putting together a set consisting of both slabbed and raw pieces. He kept the raw pieces in a whitman plastic storage box with an NGC storage box housing the slabs and inventoried his collection on an excel spreadsheet. I joked with him if he was a registry guy and he laughed, "just filling the holes with the nicest looking, cheapest I can get. Don't care about that or the holder / sticker game." I told him "I like that as that is the approach I am taking with my Barber Half set I just started in good or better. Grading fees will eat you lunch unless its a coin which really justifies grading."

Wabbit2313

Genuine, AU Details.