New Morgan GTG

FadeToBlack

Really quick images since I had to start my shift...

I'll post the answer sometime tomorrow. Max size image.

TopographicOceans

Looks like a nice strike under the splotching

MS65

Wabbit2313

62 for me.

DennisH

64... but with 61 eye appeal.

nankraut

Technical MS64 due to hits along the lower jaw-line. But--- Ugly toning takes it down to MS63

david3142

After a bath this could be a 65 (and before I get grouped with the bright white crowd, I collect toned Morgans).

IrishMikey

Looks like 64 to 65 to me. I like it the way it is, so keep the dip away. Looks pretty fresh.

johnny9434

ms 63 and not for me.

golden

I grade it ugly. I don't think a dip will come out good.

KollectorKing

The question is...how in the blank did it toned like that?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

CoinJunkie

<< <i>ms 63 and not for me. >>


+1

robertpr

Nice luster, but the hits on the lower cheek probably grade limit the piece to MS64, and the negative eye appeal probably takes it down to a 63 or maybe even a 62, I'd say it's probably in a 63 slab and I'd pass on it.

HighRelief

Looks to be about 63

DollarAfterDollar

MS 60. That gouge on the face can't be hidden by the toning.

AUandAG

<< <i>64... but with 61 eye appeal. >>



+1
Nice hit on the jaw and that would be a focal point if it were not so heavily toned.

bob

asheland

64

Ricko won't like it.

panexpoguy

I would say a technical 63 dropped to 62 for unattractive toning.

keets

MS61.

BIGAL2749

Can't see it getting into a 63 holder but what a strike for a 1902-O

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Wabbit2313

If it makes you feel better, I'll bump up my grade to a 63, gut still says 62.

IrishMikey

So what does it grade?

CoinJunkie

<< <i>Y'all are harsh! Or maybe it's just my pics. >>


Well, if it got graded strictly on luster, I could see 65, but the marks and toning are hard to ignore.

Timbuk3

I don't think a 65. 63, maybe a 64. Gouge on the cheek
and neck. Good luck !!! :-)

nwcoast

Nice luster though the toning is not for me.
Previously mentioned cheek hits, along with the toning would hold it to a 63 IMHO.
Strong luster peeking through though!






You suck awarded... Through some guts and luck.
Always learning!

keets

great, another annoying thread where the OP never posts the grade.

nwcoast

<< <i>great, another annoying thread where the OP never posts the grade. >>



I'd be more inclined to give FTB the benefit of doubt on this one.
I doubt he'd flake out as he's been a consistant and reliable poster and went to the trouble to take two sets of photos on this coin.

Sometimes 'life' and its associated challenges can get in the way of our fun.

Wabbit2313

Alright Larry, fork up the grade!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Wabbit2313

Based on your quick picture, the color looks way better. I would say 63 for me at the end of the day and I like the old ANA holders.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Wabbit2313

<< <i>

<< <i>Based on your quick picture, the color looks way better. I would say 63 for me at the end of the day and I like the old ANA holders. >>



I mean, the toning isn't attractive, but it certainly doesn't mute the luster or act as a huge detriment. It's more neutral to maybe a .25 point deduction from the grade, it pushes it from a shot 65 to a lock 64. I feel the strike, luster and fields easily put it in a 64 holder, and the hits on the cheek hold it out of a 65 holder. >>



These holders are hit or miss for me. That is one big whack to the cheek. On this particular holder, some go up, stay the same or go down about an equal amount when I have cracked them. The MS-65's are usually a little overgraded with today's eyes.

asheland