Home U.S. Coin Forum

1900-S Morgan GTG Update: Grade posted

FadeToBlackFadeToBlack Posts: 7,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
image





It graded MS64.



Given the price goes something like $500 in 64 to $1500 in 65, I understand the 64 grade on this one, even if I think the surfaces are clean enough and the luster is good enough to go 65. Subpar eye appeal and a spot of weird luster in a primary focal area (cheek area) probably hold it back.



At any rate, at least it's in a problem-free slab, where it belongs, and out of the MS details slab it resided in not too long ago before I cracked and resubbed it.



Looks like 14/43 got it right.

Comments

  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 44,511 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: FadeToBlack
    image


    I just got this back from PCGS… after a long break from submitting.
    It was graded MS 63+.

    I think yours is better.

    image
  • BustHalfBrianBustHalfBrian Posts: 4,190 ✭✭✭✭
    Looks like a "slider" (AU58).
    Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist based in SoCal.
  • oldlinecoinsoldlinecoins Posts: 183 ✭✭✭
    64
  • KyleKyle Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I know the grade so I will refrain from comment.



    You did well on the submission though!
    Successful BST Transactions With: tonedase, streg2, airplanenut, coindeuce, vibr0nic, natetrook, Shrub68, golden, Lakesammman, drddm, Ilikecolor, CoinJunkie, wondercoin, lablover
  • DollarAfterDollarDollarAfterDollar Posts: 3,215 ✭✭✭✭✭
    MS 65 to these eyes.
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Some kind of planchet flaw/damage or a 64.
  • gripgrip Posts: 9,962 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: BustHalfBrian
    Looks like a "slider" (AU58).


    That's what I thought.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,768 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Please take this the right way- I suspect the coin looks better in hand than in the image. The 1900-s can be well struck but often lacks the wow factor of earlier San Francisco Morgans like the 1879-s through 82-s

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • halfhunterhalfhunter Posts: 2,770 ✭✭✭
    I'm just not seeing the rub. I do see the usual weak strike over Miss Liberty's ear.

    The ding/mark at her lower lip is a lil distracting . . . My WAG is 65.



    HH
    Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set:
    1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
    Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
  • TopographicOceansTopographicOceans Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭✭
    I was going to guess 64, but the chatter in front of the lips made me vote 63
  • jughead1893jughead1893 Posts: 1,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    64
  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,181 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is a tough coin to grade. The surfaces are relatively clean and characteristic of a gem+ coin; however, the luster is somewhat muted (probably from a dip or two) and there is a weakness of strike above the ear. I am very tempted to call this MS65 but due to the luster and strike issues, I will call it MS64+.
  • This content has been removed.
  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 44,511 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: FadeToBlack
    I'll post the grade somewhere around 11pm Eastern.


    This week or after Easter ?
  • ShadyDaveShadyDave Posts: 2,217 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: halfhunter
    I'm just not seeing the rub. I do see the usual weak strike over Miss Liberty's ear.
    The ding/mark at her lower lip is a lil distracting . . . My WAG is 65.

    HH


    Same here. It's tough to grade Morgans from pictures, since luster is one of the biggest determining factors and all you have to go on is a static picture. Since the cheek is clean and looks like there is decent luster I said 65 as well.
  • This content has been removed.
  • ashelandasheland Posts: 23,624 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • IrishMikeyIrishMikey Posts: 1,561 ✭✭✭
    Nice crack-out. Was it No-Graded for the problem in front of the lips? My grade was MS-64 on this (before I got to the "grade reveal" post), but I agree with others that grading this type of coin from images is often an exercise in futility.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: FadeToBlack
    Originally posted by: IrishMikey
    Nice crack-out. Was it No-Graded for the problem in front of the lips? My grade was MS-64 on this (before I got to the "grade reveal" post), but I agree with others that grading this type of coin from images is often an exercise in futility.


    Beats me. I was stunned it bagged the first time.


    What was the reason for details? Cleaning, damage? If it was PCGS, there would be a code stating the problem if it didn't have the description on the label.

  • This content has been removed.
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Awesome!
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I thought it was 64 with a shot at 65.... Cheers, RickO
  • SamByrdSamByrd Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭✭
    I thought as a guess ms65 very clean coin over all.
  • bestdaybestday Posts: 4,242 ✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: FadeToBlack
    Sorry bout that.

    It graded MS64.

    Given the price goes something like $500 in 64 to $1500 in 65, I understand the 64 grade on this one, even if I think the surfaces are clean enough and the luster is good enough to go 65. Subpar eye appeal and a spot of weird luster in a primary focal area (cheek area) probably hold it back.

    At any rate, at least it's in a problem-free slab, where it belongs, and out of the MS details slab it resided in not too long ago before I cracked and resubbed it.

    Looks like 14/43 got it right.



    This one cleaner than many 66s .. grade up value, a hinder ?
  • 3keepSECRETif2rDEAD3keepSECRETif2rDEAD Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I voted 65...Nice Morgan buddy!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file