Home U.S. Coin Forum

Morgan Grade assistance, help me learn

First, I just would like to point out that I have read a lot about the grading scale and what to look for. I've compared what I am seeing to other pieces of similar grades, but I am looking for some help on a specific coin and what I am missing. I dont post a ton, but read a lot on here and I am confident that you wont rip on this newb type post.

Picked this piece up with a recent ebay sale, i thought the pictures looked very nice and it fit well within my Morgan collection that I am putting together (I am being picky with what I buy, as I have learned to make sure I like the coin and not worry about the grades). I am not unhappy in any way after receiving the coin, but when I opened up the package I did not feel it was the same one I bought! In hand, I thought it looked much better than what I saw online, which is great...very happy I grabbed it.

It's got a grade assigned to it, and I trust that the experts know what they are doing. but I am looking for help in seeing what they are seeing, specifically where and why. First two images are what was online that I liked what I saw. Second couple are QUICK phone images to attempt to bring out the the more natural in hand look (but I think the online images show a lot of good detail). Any assistance is appreciated! I will add the grade in a little bit, figured it might also be fun for you to test your skills with 2D computer images :smile: Thank you in advance




«1

Comments

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,427 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My guess at the grade on the holder would be AU-55, perhaps AU-58. The coin is not Mint State because there is wear on the high points of the design and some rub in the fields.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • ashelandasheland Posts: 22,612 ✭✭✭✭✭

    AU53 Nice coin!

  • david3142david3142 Posts: 3,388 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What is your question? The 1886-S is a much better date but they do come nice. Yours looks to be between AU58 and MS62 but I really can’t tell more than that from the pics.
    It’s in a PCGS slab. Do you think it is under or over-graded?

  • jpczjpcz Posts: 47 ✭✭

    @david3142 said:
    What is your question? The 1886-S is a much better date but they do come nice. Yours looks to be between AU58 and MS62 but I really can’t tell more than that from the pics.
    It’s in a PCGS slab. Do you think it is under or over-graded?

    My question is to help me understand what PCGS is seeing, I believe the experts know what they are doing. But I cant talk to them to help educate me. I dont think its under or over graded, because I dont know enough yet to grade myself :smile:

    When I pulled the coin out of the package I was surprised, as to me it looked better than I originally saw online.

  • KkathylKkathyl Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree with your assessment. The pictures online do not justice to see that the coin does still have skin on it. I think that the coin has too many digs to be MS but it is close when you look at the in hand pictures. My guess is that when others looked at the coin online, the lack of luster kept other buyers away. Not a strong strike but a fine example for the year.

    Sometime you can find a good buy.

    Best place to buy !
    Bronze Associate member

  • LindeDadLindeDad Posts: 18,766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Agree mid AU don't see it being MS.

  • david3142david3142 Posts: 3,388 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don’t know the grade so I don’t know what the experts are seeing that you are not. I agree that the coin does appear to have rub in the fields. It could be graded AU55. Perhaps there are hairlines in the fields that aren’t visible in the pictures. That would net it down a bit.

  • jpczjpcz Posts: 47 ✭✭

    @BillJones said:
    My guess at the grade on the holder would be AU-55, perhaps AU-58. The coin is not Mint State because there is wear on the high points of the design and some rub in the fields.

    Is there a specific high point you are looking at? I am having a hard time seeing it on the reverse high points, although obv high points I can begin to see it.

  • jpczjpcz Posts: 47 ✭✭

    It is in a PCGS AU55 holder, so you are all right on. I am just trying to see what you all are and learn a little! thank you!

  • abcde12345abcde12345 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭✭✭

    ms65 unless there is cleaned luster than ms63.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 23, 2018 12:34PM

    @abcde12345 said:
    ms65 unless there is cleaned luster than ms63.

    Please help the OP and explain your opinion of the grade. :) I think I see a little wear on the high points.

  • ChrisH821ChrisH821 Posts: 6,293 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree with AU55. The seller picture looks like a very diffuse light source, I would say a scanner image but the coin is slightly tilted. This does show the surface condition(marks and such) very well but does not convey luster at all. You definitely have the same coin as the original picture, the marks line up.

    Collector, occasional seller

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,427 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jpcz said:

    @BillJones said:
    My guess at the grade on the holder would be AU-55, perhaps AU-58. The coin is not Mint State because there is wear on the high points of the design and some rub in the fields.

    Is there a specific high point you are looking at? I am having a hard time seeing it on the reverse high points, although obv high points I can begin to see it.

    The luster is worn off of Ms. Liberty's cheek and on the central breast feathers of the eagle. In addition there are dull spots on the fields. If you rotate the coin under a strong, direct light, you will see a great deal of "cartwheel luster" coming back at you, but there will be breaks in the field between the letters on the edge and the devices in the center.

    It's hard to teach this from photos, but you can compare it this dollar which grades MS-63.


    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • TomBTomB Posts: 20,697 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The coin is a flashy AU. You can see the wear on the high point of the eagle's breast as well as on the cheek and the front of the neck of Ms. Liberty. In both your digital photographs and what appear to be the seller's scanner images, these high point areas show friction by being slightly lighter, more grey, less lustrous or duller than areas that have more intact mint surfaces.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • jpczjpcz Posts: 47 ✭✭
    edited March 23, 2018 1:16PM

    ^^that is very helpful. Certainly the assistance I was looking for. I dont quite yet see the wear on the eagle breast feathers in full, but as I said can start to see what you are on the obverse. I will need to work on understanding "dull spots" but I will get there.

  • TheRavenTheRaven Posts: 4,143 ✭✭✭✭

    My guess was AU-55. sellers pics not that great.

    Keep looking at coins and you will figure it out.

    Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
  • DollarAfterDollarDollarAfterDollar Posts: 3,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm in the AU 55 camp. Nice coin.

    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The easiest place to find circulation is in the fields on a Morgan. Note the darker areas in the fields, like a circle. Dead giveaway.

  • BlindedByEgoBlindedByEgo Posts: 10,754 ✭✭✭✭✭

    AU62. Very flashy nice looking slider. Price jumps markedly in MS grades.

  • CommemKingCommemKing Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Probably AU55.

  • blitzdudeblitzdude Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Solid AU55

    The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.

  • cladkingcladking Posts: 28,307 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you hold the coin between your eye and a bright light you can see the dull grey wear on the high points. Just tip the coin until the high points seem to rise above the field. These high points will have the luster worn off.

    It's a nice coin but not mint state. Any break in luster on the high spots precludes an Unc grade.

    Tempus fugit.
  • cladkingcladking Posts: 28,307 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Always use incandescent or similar light for grading.

    Tempus fugit.
  • hchcoinhchcoin Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TomB said:
    The coin is a flashy AU. You can see the wear on the high point of the eagle's breast as well as on the cheek and the front of the neck of Ms. Liberty. In both your digital photographs and what appear to be the seller's scanner images, these high point areas show friction by being slightly lighter, more grey, less lustrous or duller than areas that have more intact mint surfaces.

    Great description.

  • hchcoinhchcoin Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Wabbit2313 said:
    The easiest place to find circulation is in the fields on a Morgan. Note the darker areas in the fields, like a circle. Dead giveaway.

    Another nice description.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cladking said:
    ALWAYS use incandescent or similar light for grading.

    This is one of the biggest falsehoods that has been perpetrated on the collecting public for much of the last century and all of this one. :p

    There is a perfectly good reason for this and I have a little time to explain. Incandescent light (75 - 100W) is used at every TPGS, recommended in books, grading seminars and touted as the only type of light to use for examining a coin. The reason for this is it allows bag marks, scratches, and hairlines to "pop-out." I use one (100W) every day at work.

    However, for almost fifty years, there has also been a dual bulb, FLORESCENT jeweler's lamp on my desk. I use it for grading and authentication. The simple reason I don't recommend you get one is it becomes too easy to see the "cabinet friction" and repairs on all the coins that now grade as Mint State due to the shift in the standard for Uncirculated that has taken place. You see, when you look at the high points of a coin under incandescent light the reflected glare makes everything look great. That stupid florescent light dulls down the coin's entire surface so any change of color from a repair or loss of luster "pops-out!" That could be very inconvenient if you want a true MS coin.

    Try it for yourself as one famous, long-time, dealer did a few years ago. He came over to the grading table to show me the monster "gem" Uncirculated coin he just snagged. I took a look under the florescent light and told him the "gem" was actually a monster "gem" AU. :( He looked at it under my "forbidden light" and agreed. That night he bought an Ott florescent light to use at his table the next day. :) Another of my many converts. :p

  • jpczjpcz Posts: 47 ✭✭

    I've learned quite a bit from these responses. Thank you!

  • cladkingcladking Posts: 28,307 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jpcz said:
    I've learned quite a bit from these responses. Thank you!

    I should add that no one can really grade from a photo. There are striking characteristics that can look a lot like wear even in hand. It is experience that allows us to say that the coin is probably worn and this is the best explanation for what is seen in the photo.

    The first thing a collector needs to learn about grading is where all of the high points are and how this changes as the coin wears away. Coins wear from the top down so this is where you look first.

    Tempus fugit.
  • hchcoinhchcoin Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jpcz do you have a book on grading that shows the high points for the different coins? That would also be helpful. I always look at the breast feathers and the hair right above the ear first on a Morgan. I was conditioned to do that in the 70's by a local dealer. Just look at the difference between your coin and Bill Jones example and you can really see the difference on the breast feathers.

  • cladkingcladking Posts: 28,307 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Insider2 said:

    This is one of the biggest falsehoods that has been perpetrated on the collecting public for much of the last century and all of this one. :p

    There is a perfectly good reason for this and I have a little time to explain. Incandescent light (75 - 100W) is used at every TPGS, recommended in books, grading seminars and touted as the only type of light to use for examining a coin. The reason for this is it allows bag marks, scratches, and hairlines to "pop-out." I use one (100W) every day at work.

    However, for almost fifty years, there has also been a dual bulb, FLORESCENT jeweler's lamp on my desk. I use it for grading and authentication. The simple reason I don't recommend you get one is it becomes too easy to see the "cabinet friction" and repairs on all the coins that now grade as Mint State due to the shift in the standard for Uncirculated that has taken place. You see, when you look at the high points of a coin under incandescent light the reflected glare makes everything look great. That stupid florescent light dulls down the coin's entire surface so any change of color from a repair or loss of luster "pops-out!" That could be very inconvenient if you want a true MS coin.

    Try it for yourself as one famous, long-time, dealer did a few years ago. He came over to the grading table to show me the monster "gem" Uncirculated coin he just snagged. I took a look under the florescent light and told him the "gem" was actually a monster "gem" AU. :( He looked at it under my "forbidden light" and agreed. That night he bought an Ott florescent light to use at his table the next day. :) Another of my many converts. :p

    Thanks. I'll try this sometime.

    Tempus fugit.
  • jpczjpcz Posts: 47 ✭✭

    @hchcoin said:
    @jpcz do you have a book on grading that shows the high points for the different coins? That would also be helpful. I always look at the breast feathers and the hair right above the ear first on a Morgan. I was conditioned to do that in the 70's by a local dealer. Just look at the difference between your coin and Bill Jones example and you can really see the difference on the breast feathers.

    Yes I have a book but have used the internet too. In hand, I was having difficulty discerning the wear on this particular piece but wasn't getting much help comparing with some other examples I could find. I was trying to rely less on the images...

    I think, as pointed out by another member, it's going to take studying a lot of coins in hand of various grades to really get it. Well at least get it more, noone can really get it I guess.

  • ACopACop Posts: 1,479 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Buy The Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cladking said: "Thanks. I'll try this sometime."

    Hope so, but don't throw out your incandescent lamp! :)

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A nice 55 Morgan....Remember, grading is not yet science and there are no true standards. So, learn from the forum, books and mentors.... it does not happen overnight. Cheers, RickO

  • davewesendavewesen Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jpcz said:

    @BillJones said:
    My guess at the grade on the holder would be AU-55, perhaps AU-58. The coin is not Mint State because there is wear on the high points of the design and some rub in the fields.

    Is there a specific high point you are looking at? I am having a hard time seeing it on the reverse high points, although obv high points I can begin to see it.

    On this coin, the low points show it is AU. All of the areas away from the devices (letters and pictures) show uniform clatter. MS coins would have random or no clatter (darker areas from multiple contact points). The shiny areas around periphery shows coin still has luster, so very high XF or AU. To see rub, frequently you need to see coin in hand and view with loupe, as some weakly struck coins will look similar to lightly worn coins at the 'high points'.

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,427 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ACop said:
    Buy The Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection

    Buy the ANA Grading Guide instead. If you find an older edition used for less money, that's just as good if not better than the new one.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • BlindedByEgoBlindedByEgo Posts: 10,754 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Will the OP post the slab with the assigned grade? My guess is 55.

  • BlindedByEgoBlindedByEgo Posts: 10,754 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FadeToBlack said:

    @BlindedByEgo said:
    Will the OP post the slab with the assigned grade? My guess is 55.

    He already said it's a 55. I agree with the assigned grade from the images provided.

    Sorry, smoehow missed that. Thanks!

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BillJones said:

    @ACop said:
    Buy The Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection

    Buy the ANA Grading Guide instead. If you find an older edition used for less money, that's just as good if not better than the new one.

    ONE HUNDRED % DISAGREEMENT!

    The only ANA Grading guide that follows current standards close enough is the 7th edition. The earlier editions became so obsolete years ago that the images were too conservative. I told my Summer Seminar Students that the intro was a must read however the photos will throw your grading off. I recommended the Bowers book and it sold out of the bookstore. The ANA's 7th edition is a great improvement. I refer to both books and the PCGS Grading images on a daily basis.

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,427 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 24, 2018 7:39PM

    Insider2 has joined the grade-flation parade. How sad. The words "current standards," which really means no standards with any consistency, says it all.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • mannie graymannie gray Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree with the 55 grade.
    Obvious but not heavy friction/metal loss, especially on forelocks, and eagle's breast.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 25, 2018 1:57PM

    @BillJones said:
    Insider2 has joined the grade-flation parade. How sad. The words "current standards," which really means no standards with any consistency, says it all.

    I'll tell you what's extremely sad Mr. Bill, posting a disagreement to some OBSERVABLE facts that you are apparently uninformed about:

    1. For as long as I have been a professional numismatist the ONLY TIME there was ever an unchangeable, precise, grading standard lasting over a decade was the "Technical Grading System" I personally devised for our internal record keeping at the ANACS while it was located in Washington, DC. That system was carried over and used at the first TPGS - INSAB also in Washington. Our opinion of a coin's grade (kept for internal records to ID coins along with weight and photo) was issued FREE of charge on request using a separate card included with the INS Photo Certificate of authenticity. The **ANACS service in Colorado "bastardized" a system they had no clue about while continuing to call it "technical grading." So you see Mr. Bill, I know all about a strict, never changing ACTUAL GRADING STANDARD and the differences to it that we have today based on:

    a. Commercial market conditions.
    b. Rarity.
    c. Provenance.
    d. Value.
    e. Subjectivity
    f. Eye appeal, etc. rather than the coin's actual condition of preservation from the time it dropped from the coining press - flat strike and all.

    AFAIK, true "technical grading" is ONLY taught to students in my grading seminars as an introduction to what they see on coins and prepare them for my further instruction on the "commercial" system they will encounter in the REAL WORLD as practiced by the top two TPGS.

    1. Early editions of the ANA Grading Guide MAY be less costly and better than nothing. Nevertheless, while the introductions in these books are still important, many of the photos are not.

    2. The 7th Edition of the ANA grading guide makes it comparable to the Bowers book which is excellent and the intro to that book is MUST READING to be informed about the evolution of coin grading

    3. You and I both have seen the way coins are graded change in an EXTREME fashion. To deny it is nonsense, and to ignore it is...(original word changed) uninformed. BTW, it is called "gradeflation" and I have jumped on the wagon with both feet as that's what my employers require. My personal grading stands are much different and more conservative.

    I'm sad to see how there is no "standard." I believe I'm informed enough to know how/why that is. Now, I'm just reminded of one fond personal memory...The late Eric Newman informed me once that I was "Jousting with Windmills." :)

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,427 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm sad to see how there is no "standard." I believe I'm informed enough to know how/why that is. Now, I'm just reminded of one fond personal memory...The late Eric Newman informed me once that I was "Jousting with Windmills." :)

    Your statement reminds me of a conversation I had with Herb Silberman who was a co-founder of EAC. He said to me, "What you young fellows going to do about the grading situation?" This was back in the early 1980s.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 25, 2018 11:01AM

    Not in the very least bit close to mint state.
    If it was a 93-S, I'd say AU53 CAC if the raw metal in the fields isn't "too raw" or over-all yellowish from the obvious dipping.

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BillJones said: "Your statement reminds me of a conversation I had with Herb Silberman who was a co-founder of EAC. He said to me, "What you young fellows going to do about the grading situation?" This was back in the early 1980s."

    Well, I know what the EAC folks did about the "grading situation:" They devised their own NON-STANDARD and confusing grading system (Net Grading system)) that has no relationship to the actual condition of preservation of most coins they grade.

    The grading guide EAC has produced (which I must truly recommend for much of its excellent content) backs up in print everything I just posted about their wacky "standards."

    PS I would like to read a simple description of a NET GRADED VF Large cent WITHOUT AN IMAGE in this thread. Good Luck. :)

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,427 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You and I shall politely disagree on the subject of EAC net grading.

    Most early copper coins have problems, which means that you have net grade or do something similar to price them and rank coins for condition census information. Copper is the most reactive off all the classic coinage metals, and sometimes the conposition of the early copper coins including something else other than pure copper. The alternative would be to simply body bag all of them and call them “damaged,” which would not be of much use to anyone in my opinion.

    The system is not confusing at all if you worked with it for a number of years. Most any EAC annual auction catalog can provide you with course in how it’s done. Of course, it’s best to examine the coins in person, but even working with photos can be quite educational. I started to learn to grade from the first edition of Photo Grade.

    The biggest problem EAC grading are the individuals who like to play politics with the grades to boost the stock of their own holdings, and one of their friends. The usual game there is to be ultra conservative and run down any new challenger to coins that have made it to the finest known ranks. That way the coins would be moved down in the pecking order get to stay where they are until they truly meet that light of day.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BillJones said: "Most early copper coins have problems, which means that you have net grade or do something similar to price them and rank coins for condition census information. Copper is the most reactive off all the classic coinage metals, and sometimes the conposition of the early copper coins including something else other than pure copper. The alternative would be to simply body bag all of them and call them “damaged,” which would not be of much use to anyone in my opinion."

    Actually, the easy and precise alternative is to grade them the same as any other coin. We call it "Details Grading." Open the grading guide that non-EAC folks don't use, match the image and add any modifiers. At one time in the 1970's, I thought grading coins was easy. That was until I got into a room with a dozen famous numismatists who knew more than I ever will. When an XF 1794 Large cent was passed around to be graded, the "Experts" graded the "Photograde Perfect" XF-40 (that's where I looked) from VF to AU! >:) Just another example of why it is impossible to visualize a sight-unseen coin that is net graded. :(

    @BillJones continues: "The system is not confusing at all if you worked with it for a number of years. Most any EAC annual auction catalog can provide you with course in how it’s done. Of course, it’s best to examine the coins in person, but even working with photos can be quite educational."

    Actually, that contradicts what is printed in the EAC Grading guide. Unfortunately, I don't have it here to quote from. Basically, the writers state that the system can be confusing, the folks using it don't always agree, etc. Sounds like the Commercial system used by the TPGS's. No? And in addition to the subjective way each defect can lower a coin's wear grade when examined by an EAC member, we must deal with the question of what it is WORTH!

    IMO, the biggest problem with EAC grading is it is not in sync with the majority of us (dealers, collectors) and adds even more variables to something that should not be complicated. That does not make it WRONG. It just makes it a very imprecise, fanciful, exercise practiced by a group of knowledgeable and dedicated collectors. Have fun guys! :)

    Oh, and when I see that a coin is auctioned with two grades, one from EAC and one from PCGS which is correct? What is the coin worth?

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,721 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Seems this discussion went down a side street missing what is important. Let's not mix grading Morgan Dollars and early copper. Different coins and different issues.

    The coin which is the subject of this thread was graded 55 by our host. It was enhanced with a dip and has wear at the typical high points of Morgan Dollar. Take a good look at the eagle breast, the lustre and overall appearance. 55 seems reasonable. The first image highlights and limits the upside for the grade which is in the AU spectrum.

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

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coinkat said: "Seems this discussion went down a side street missing what is important. Let's not mix grading Morgan Dollars and early copper. Different coins and different issues. The coin which is the subject of this thread was graded 55 by our host. It was enhanced with a dip and has wear at the typical high points of Morgan Dollar. Take a good look at the eagle breast, the lustre and overall appearance. 55 seems reasonable. The first image highlights and limits the upside for the grade which is in the AU spectrum."

    Oops!

    @jpcz said: "I don't quite yet see the wear on the eagle breast feathers in full, ..."

    Look at the heart shape bust and ignore the rest of the image. The upper left area of the heart is a slightly different color. That is the rubbing. Now, take your coin and hold it at an angle under florescent light in an otherwise darkened room. That patch should look dark gray or at least a different color compared with the rest of the breast.

Leave a Comment

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