1891 Morgan $1 QUIZ

boyernumismatics

Hi all. I thought I would put together a little quiz like thread here for you all to jog your minds and to see who can hit the nail on the head.



I recently purchased this 1891 Morgan at a coin show in Biloxi, Mississippi over the summer. It was in an old binder a guy had just sitting on his table. He had quality stuff, but didn't know what to think about this one. He had a relatively low price on it, so I said what the heck and picked it up just for kicks and giggles. I brought it over one of my long term dealer friends to see what he had to say about it, and he gave some insight. I decided to cough up the $100 for it to go to PCGS under Regular-Mint Error. I got it back a few weeks ago.



Throw out your best guesses as to what it graded and I'll post the results later.



Here are some pictures:

Rollerman

I was thinking somewhere between AU55 and AU 58, but then saw that damage on the reverse and can't decide if that's a large strike thru or just post mint damage. I lean towards PMD and AU details.

AUandAG

Looks like a strike through wood to my eyes. I'm leaning toward a AU53



bob

Jinx86

Weak strike and strike through on Rev, I would wager MS61. Niche market with the error however.

TigersFan2

I looked it up in the cert verification so I won't post my "guess." Too bad you can't see the mintmark. It would be even cooler if it's an 1891-CC.

boyernumismatics

Originally posted by: TigersFan2

I looked it up in the cert verification so I won't post my "guess." Too bad you can't see the mintmark. It would be even cooler if it's an 1891-CC.

Good job with the trial and error for the missing number on the cert verification.



I did tons of VAM research on this coin before sending it in, and the coin aligns with VAM 9b from the Philadelphia mint. That's why it's slabbed as a Philly coin.

mvs7

Looks like AU53-55. The edges around the missing area on the back (good strike right up until the edge, then mushy details inside the edge, then drop off) make it look like missing metal before strike, such as a planchet flaw or lamination error, rather than a strike through.

CascadeChris

Almost looks like a laminated planchet rather than a strikethrough debris

seanq

A lamination that deep would have weak details on the obverse opposite the area of missing metal. Because the obverse of the OP's coin appears fully struck, I would attribute this as a strike-through. My best guess for a grade would be somewhere in the AU range, depending on luster.



Sean Reynolds

CascadeChris

I thought about that Sean but look at the surrounding letter devices. If this was a strikethrough it was more solid than viscous and something that solid would have left more "hard" edges and wouldn't have let the devices form as fully as they did. If it was more viscous the R woudnt have abruptly stopped at the lower serif under the pressure of the strike. Its a tuffy for sure but I'm sticking with lamination. If I'm wrong I'm wrong.

zas107

Au55 Can't tell if strike through or planchet lamination.

MFH

I'll say it's an AU 55 - Struck Thru ( wood, would be my guess !)

johnny9434

au 53. im not sure about the rest of it thou.

Danye West

AU53

TopographicOceans

53

DollarAfterDollar

AU 55.



Don't have a view on the damage.

seanq

Originally posted by: CascadeChris

I thought about that Sean but look at the surrounding letter devices. If this was a strikethrough it was more solid than viscous and something that solid would have left more "hard" edges and wouldn't have let the devices form as fully as they did. If it was more viscous the R woudnt have abruptly stopped at the lower serif under the pressure of the strike. Its a tuffy for sure but I'm sticking with lamination. If I'm wrong I'm wrong.

Chris, I would guess that the material was either wood or cloth, based on the texture of the planchet. It could also have been struck through a separate piece planchet scrap, but one that was not ever attached to this coin. Basically I do not think the surfaces are indicative of a lamination. However it happened it's a cool looking piece and a nice buy.



Sean Reynolds

CascadeChris

Cloth usually has a different look and embeds and wood wouldn't look so amorphous and wouldn't allow letters to strike up at all. I'm sticking to my guns. Lets see if I get shot or turn out to be a daisy whenever the op reveals

jughead1893

58 struck thru

messydesk

55 Lamination. Strike-thru wouldn't show any detail of design that was meant to be there. The ghost image of the wreath indicates the coin was properly struck. I'm a bit surprised there's no discoloration in the messed-up part.

boyernumismatics

Here's the details of the coin per PCGS:



1891 AU55 Reverse Lamination.



A few of you had it down packed on the lamination error and a few of you had the AU55 part down. Put those two together and the winners of bragging rights are:



messydesk





mvs7



Thank you all for playing along. I feel like this could be a learning experience for us all...it sure was for me! For a $45 initial investment, I can't go wrong.

ricko

Wow...got here too late....very interesting. Thanks for posting this... informative. Cheers, RickO