Options
1878-S Morgan (PCGS) - GTG (Grade Revealed)
Kyle
Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭✭✭
Nothing too fancy, just a 78-S Morgan.
Guess the grade (Grade posted on second page).
Guess the grade (Grade posted on second page).
Successful BST Transactions With: tonedase, streg2, airplanenut, coindeuce, vibr0nic, natetrook, Shrub68, golden, Lakesammman, drddm, Ilikecolor, CoinJunkie, wondercoin, lablover
0
Comments
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
However, it's a nice lustrous coin.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Free Trial
Wayne
www.waynedriskillminiatures.com
Drunner
"La Vostra Nonna Ha Faccia Del Fungo"
A normal amount of very light chatter in the obverse fields, precluding a higher grade but certainly not indicative of heavy marks (look at the reed mark for example on the neck!!!). A puffy cheek (ok, subjective, but certainly not a cheek that has taken a lot of abuse, and THIS is the area I have found to be the 'money' focal point of Morgans).
A '65' reverse. No, I didn't say a phenomenal reverse, but nothing there that would preclude a 65. No hits on the breast, no excessive chatter, and a decent to good strike (heck, it is an 1878, how many hubs had they gine through ??). Sure, the obverse is the key side. But the reverse does nothing to lower it.
Grading from photos -- well, OK, tough. Luster ???
But this should be a 64. One hit, and not in the prime fiocal area. A bad hit, but well -- let's see . . .
Drunner
<< <i>Let me explain my grade . .
A normal amount of very light chatter in the obverse fields, precluding a higher grade but certainly not indicative of heavy marks (look at the reed mark for example on the neck!!!). A puffy cheek (ok, subjective, but certainly not a cheek that has taken a lot of abuse, and THIS is the area I have found to be the 'money' focal point of Morgans).
A '65' reverse. No, I didn't say a phenomenal reverse, but nothing there that would preclude a 65. No hits on the breast, no excessive chatter, and a decent to good strike (heck, it is an 1878, how many hubs had they gine through ??). Sure, the obverse is the key side. But the reverse does nothing to lower it.
Grading from photos -- well, OK, tough. Luster ???
But this should be a 64. One hit, and not in the prime fiocal area. A bad hit, but well -- let's see . . .
Drunner >>
I agre with your determination but am going 64+ to 65
If you were in the market for a 65 of this date, I have a feeling most would run from this coin due to the hit. They aren't rare, afterall. Even a 64 can be found without the distracting hit.
So, I'll go with the 63 assessment. I think a 63 buyer might be happy to get the cleaner overall coin in exchange for the one big hit.
Edited: Actually, I'm going to change to 62.....just because I can.
The coin is graded MS-62, and if it wasn't for the hit on the neck I think it would have made a 63. A couple people have asked; the coin does have average luster.
Either way, it will make a great addition to the set I am putting together.
<< <i>I agre with your determination but am going 64+ to 65 >>
Even without the major reeding marks, the cheek is too rough for that range.
<< <i>
<< <i>I agre with your determination but am going 64+ to 65 >>
Even without the major reeding marks, the cheek is too rough for that range. >>
Interesting contrast in pictures.
The original made the cheek look OK, and the field in front look pretty marked up.
The slab picture makes the cheek look pretty bad, and the field look OK.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I agre with your determination but am going 64+ to 65 >>
Even without the major reeding marks, the cheek is too rough for that range. >>
Interesting contrast in pictures.
The original made the cheek look OK, and the field in front look pretty marked up.
The slab picture makes the cheek look pretty bad, and the field look OK. >>
To my eye, the cheek looks rough in both obverse photos.
<< <i>To my eye, the cheek looks rough in both obverse photos. >>
Well....my term "OK" was intentionally nebulous, and not found in any grading guide.
I think the two pictures are interesting to compare and contrast, whatever the case.
Added: BTW, I really like the coin for the strike. Whenever you can get fully defined hair over the ear, a Morgan just looks better....
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I agre with your determination but am going 64+ to 65 >>
Even without the major reeding marks, the cheek is too rough for that range. >>
Interesting contrast in pictures.
The original made the cheek look OK, and the field in front look pretty marked up.
The slab picture makes the cheek look pretty bad, and the field look OK. >>
Wholly snot buckets man that first pic is way nicer looking if I had seen the new one I would have went 62 as that cheek and eye brow are beat up like she was just in an octagon cage match. What makeup did she use in the first pic?
<< <i>Wholly snot buckets man that first pic is way nicer looking if I had seen the new one I would have went 62 as that cheek and eye brow are beat up like she was just in an octagon cage match. What makeup did she use in the first pic >>
Only thing edited in the close up picture was brightness, contrast, and a touch of colour correction. Other than that; nothing.
You can still see the all the marks in the original images.
Drunner