Your opinions of the grade on this 1881-S Morgan I picked up today?

Russ · July 6, 2003 9:32AM

That last image shows the holder it's in as well as the mirror depth on the obverse. Reverse has the same degree of mirroring in the center where it's not toned.

I'm thinking MS64PL on this one. What do you guys and gals think?

Russ, NCNE

KlectorKid · July 6, 2003 9:34AM

I'd say that MS-64PL is right.

BillJones · July 6, 2003 10:02AM

It's a nice MS-64, but the P-L part is no big deal for an 1881-S. It's rare to find a 1881-S dollar that is not P-L to some extent.

Ditto for 1879-S and 1880-S.

DanC · July 6, 2003 10:05AM

MS64PL and YOU SUCK!

darktone · July 6, 2003 10:07AM

MS63 PL

wingedliberty · July 6, 2003 10:10AM

PCGS: 64PL
NGC/ANACS: Easy 65PL due to aesthetic appeal.

Brian.

WWW · July 6, 2003 10:10AM

Hey Russ, that's one nice early S-mint Morgan. And while it's easy to be jaded about PL surfaces when they are perceived to be common, it still amazes me how cool these coins look in such condition. Nice color on this one too. MS64 PL or semi-prooflike.

coinkat · July 6, 2003 10:14AM

1881-S Morgans are among the best quality of the entire series. I would say MS63 PL with about a 45% chance at 64 PL.

BillJones · July 6, 2003 10:16AM

I'm not saying the coin is bad or anything. It's just that beginning collectors should not get overly thrilled and pay a big premium when they see an S-mint dollar from 1878 through 1881 with PL surfaces. There is nothing rare about them. I've read that the San Fransisco mint made a big effort to produce nice dollars during this period because they wanted to replace the Philadelphia mint as the head office. Fortunately a lot of these coins were saved among the Treasury department's hoards, and so they are quite common today.

Now if you see an 1895-O or a 1901-P, that's another story.

Russ · July 6, 2003 10:25AM

<< It's just that beginning collectors should not get overly thrilled and pay a big premium when they see an S-mint dollar from 1878 through 1881 with PL surfaces. >>

So, $150 was too much?

Russ, NCNE

DanC · July 6, 2003 10:31AM

<< So, $150 was too much? >>

I bet he didn't pay even $20 for it.

Russ · July 6, 2003 10:33AM

<< I bet he didn't pay even $20 for it. >>

The cool holder it's in is worth more than that.

Russ, NCNE

DanC · July 6, 2003 10:39AM

Aha... he's EVADING - this means I'm on the right track.

Wasn't a question of what the holder was WORTH - it was a question of how little you paid.... splank-head.

Barry · July 6, 2003 10:50AM

Do I see some rub on the cheek? If so, 55.

BillJones · July 6, 2003 11:00AM

Hi Russ,

Yes, $150 is too much. You can buy certified MS-65 coins for less than that, and most of them will be P-L to one degree or another. Whether or not it gets a P-L is a matter of chance.

AU-55???!!!! Tell me are you selling your collection at the current wholesale prices using those grading standards?

Contact me right away!

Russ · July 6, 2003 11:01AM

<< Do I see some rub on the cheek? >>

Nope, no rub wear anywhere on the coin.

Russ, NCNE

K6AZ · July 6, 2003 11:26AM

MS64. The digs on the cheek preclude a grade any higher. As far as being PL, at least as far as PCGS or NGC is concerned, the coin has to be virtually near DMPL to get the designation on this date.

dragon · July 6, 2003 11:29AM

<<You can buy certified MS-65 coins for less than that, and most of them will be P-L to one degree or another. Whether or not it gets a P-L is a matter of chance.>>

That's not exactly correct, the 81-S is indeed a very common coin in MS, however most of them are not PL to one degree or another, the excellent lustre characterized by most 1881-S's makes many people feel they are PL coins when they are not, just highly lusterous. Actually, in nearly any MS grade, the PL coins only represent about 5% of their non-PL counterparts, and in DMPL, the 81-S is not at all a common coin in higher grades, ESPECIALLY in DMPL and with heavy cameo contrast and eye appeal. One or two rolls of incredibly cameoed high grade DMPL coins surfaced at the FUN show a couple years ago I believe, and these coins represent most of the nicer DMPL coins in the entire population IMO.

dragon

NumisEd · July 6, 2003 1:53PM

Man, you guys really do suck at grading. I am almost always 100% accurate in my predictions on this forum. That being said, I regret to inform Russ (and all of you other novice grader-wannabes) that the 81-S in question is AU-58.

Well Russ, maybe this is your "pay back" for ripping off that poor old flea market peddler and then boasting about it on this forum. You are still $1359 ahead of the game, according to my calculations.

PS - really...no kidding....that coin is NOT unc. Sorry.

dragon · July 6, 2003 2:03PM

NumisEd,

You're mistaken, it's unc.

K6AZ · July 6, 2003 2:08PM

<< Man, you guys really do suck at grading. >>

Somebody sucks at grading, and it isn't most of us. I suggest you look in a mirror for a clue as to who.

NumisEd · July 6, 2003 2:08PM

Dragon, I always bow to your numismatic prowess...really....but this time I must respectfully disagree. Look under the toning and you can see the friction and contact marks. I have many coins of this caliber that I call AU-58. They are MS-64 by Coin World advertising standards, but not NumisEd's standards.

NumisEd · July 6, 2003 2:11PM

Barry, sorry that I missed your post where you correctly graded the coin as AU-55. K6AZ, no offense, but I think that you have been looking at too many ACG slabs and now your sense of grading is slightly skewed.

dragon · July 6, 2003 2:14PM

NumisEd,

Trust me, that coin is an unc. even with all the contact marks and roll friction on the high points, I wouldn't kid you.

dragon

K6AZ · July 6, 2003 2:14PM

Sorry NumisEd, but just in your explanation you show you don't really know what to look for in determining whether or not a Morgan is circulated. Hint: you don't go by "friction" in the fields. This coin is a no question mint state coin. Want to put your money where your mouth is?

NumisEd · July 6, 2003 2:20PM

I don't have much money, and even if I did, money is too dirty to put in my mouth. However, I would LOVE to have Rusty post the results of this submission. At that time I will gladly accept your apology.

K6AZ · July 6, 2003 2:26PM

Ah, so you won't back up your assertion that this coin is circulated? I'm willing to put up a 4 weighted Morgan to back up my claim it is uncirculated. But then again, I have handled thousands of Morgans and have over 90% accuracy at both PCGS and NGC.

Now, here is a crash course in determining mint state Morgans: Pay close attention to the reverse, the eagle's breast, neck, and extreme left wing tip. On this particular coin, there is absolutely no wear on any of these three areas that are the first to show signs of wear.

Trime · July 6, 2003 2:27PM

I really do not understand the point of all the trash talk on this thread.
75% of all the participants on this forum know that ultimate judgement on coin grading can never be made on images.
It is hard for me to get too excited about a middle level common date MS Morgan even with nice toning, but if it pleases you then it is kool!
Oh looks MS63 to me.

NumisEd · July 6, 2003 2:31PM

Take a close look at the image of Rusty's thumb. It shows signs that this coin is dipped. Granted, neither you nor I can accurately grade a coin from an image, but my response to the images is that this coin is a slider. On a good day I would say this may be MS-62, but I can't believe you guys could be foolish enough to call this piece-o-bullion an MS-64 or, like some, MS-65 PL. Maybe the forum should have mandatory drug testing for all members. That thing is beat to he!! and back....and it has rub...imho.

Nuff said! Russ, send that thing in to get graded and then post the NumisEd victory thread!

K6AZ · July 6, 2003 2:41PM

<< Take a close look at the image of Rusty's thumb. It shows signs that this coin is dipped. >>

Now you have shown how far out you are here. That toning is decades worth of toning at the minimum, and you claim this coin has been dipped?

NumisEd · July 6, 2003 2:47PM

....not dipped recently, but, yes, this coin has had a bath or something. The toning is original, but it is not "decades" worth of toning, necessarily. Neither of us can tell how old the toning is. I do agree that the toning is original. As for your laughing head emoticon, what's that all about?

K6AZ · July 6, 2003 2:55PM

What, you mean this?

As I said, that toning is decades worth, and I know what I am talking about. Toning like that does not form over a few years.

NumisEd · July 6, 2003 3:02PM

What, you mean this?

Oh, I get it. You were laughing at me and my grading opinion. Hmmmm. You sure are confident in your abilities, aren't you? Like I said, let's just have Russ send that silver round (ingot wannabe) in for grading and let's see who's the better grader. Oh, I almost forgot this:

uofa1285 · July 6, 2003 3:15PM

You two...go to your rooms! Back to the question at hand. MS-63 due to the cheek mark. Difficult to tell the extent of the mirrors without having it in hand. Great, attractive coin though. Get it on eBay?

Doug

SarasotaFrank · July 6, 2003 3:27PM

heck - everybody is better at grading than me, but this coind does seem to have an awful lot of noise, and what looks like a vicious hit above the date. What appear to be sweeps under the chin also caught my untrained and admittedly sub-par eye.

K6AZ · July 6, 2003 3:33PM

Russ · July 7, 2003 1:23AM

Eddie,

You crack me up. The last time somebody said that a coin I posted was AU and Dragon said it was mint state I did send it in. Three guesses who was right.

Russ, NCNE

NumisEd · July 7, 2003 1:33AM

Three guesses who was right

I will do it with one guess: NumisEd. Now, what do I win? Seriously though, that 81-S is a piece of junk.....no offense. It may be a commercial unc, but it is a low end unc at best. I still say AU-58.

billboat · July 7, 2003 1:38AM

I agree with 63PL--anything over $50 was tooo much. Very nice reverse--I do so like the early "S" Morgans.

KlectorKid · July 7, 2003 1:44AM

I Laugh @ Ed

You think Dragon wouldnt know I mean he does basicly know more than almost everyone on the forum about these guys. Its not AU

MadMarty · July 7, 2003 1:45AM

By time Russ is done it will be a $100 coin, he paid $20 for the coin $75 for the 3 day grading and $15 for the postage. He has to go with the big grading hit just to shut Ed up!!

NumisEd · July 7, 2003 1:57AM

Look everyone, Russ' thread is asking for "your opinion", as in "my opinion" as to the grade of his coin. He did NOT ask for your opinion on NumisEd's opinion. I say AU-58. Now.......leave me alone!

Gilbert · July 7, 2003 2:01AM

The way PCGS is grading these days, I'll say it would end up in a 63 slab, no proof-likes. As others have said, the '81-S has to be preety sharp to get the PL designation. When I look at the overall image, I don't get the impression that the reflectivity is uniform enough for the designation.

I DO like the reverse though.

K6AZ · July 7, 2003 4:29AM

<< Look everyone, Russ' thread is asking for "your opinion", as in "my opinion" as to the grade of his coin. He did NOT ask for your opinion on NumisEd's opinion. I say AU-58. Now.......leave me alone! >>

Hey Bubba, you were the one who started it by saying everyone else's opinion and grading sucked.

stman · July 7, 2003 4:41AM

<< The last time somebody said that a coin I posted was AU and Dragon said it was mint state I did send it in. Three guesses who was right. >>

Russ, I was one of the few folks that guessed AU on the coin you mention. Do these results mean my opinion is not valid? And was wrong? I know what you were getting at but thought I would throw this in the mix.

Russ · July 7, 2003 4:45AM

<< Do these results mean my opinion is not valid? And was wrong? >>

Stman,

The results do not invalidate your opinion but, yes, you were wrong.

The difference, though, is that your opinion was sincerely given while Eddie is - as usual - just running his mouth.

Russ, NCNE

NumisEd · July 7, 2003 4:57AM

The difference, though, is that your opinion was sincerely given while Eddie is - as usual - just running his mouth.

Bite me. How can I be more sincere? I am emphatic about my opinion. The fact that I am not sheeplike by not following everyone's opinion that the coin is MS-64 PL, but instead holding to my opinion that the coin is circulated, proves that I am sincere. By the way, I do not "run my mouth". I could teach you a thing or two about coins. Oh wait, I forgot, you don't collect coins. You hoard 1964 Kennedy silver rounds with funny hair cuts. Geez, give it a rest!

Russ · July 7, 2003 5:00AM

Eddie,

I'm sure glad you're around today. I was sorely in need of some good entertainment.

Russ, NCNE

NumisEd · July 7, 2003 5:02AM

stman · July 7, 2003 5:04AM

If I remember correctly, the coin I thought and a few others thought was AU was because it had some roll friction or stacking. Now, imo I feel rub is rub and don't matter where it comes from. Also sometimes standards change. Clearly a different issue than this coin.

Oh No... so IF I had any credibility on this board it is all lost now.

Baley · July 7, 2003 5:45AM

IMO the subject coin is of MS61 or 62 quality, probably 62 because the attractive peripheral toning partially makes up for quite a few device and field scuffs and what looks like roll friction on the hair and face. Being an '81s it will not, IMO, receive a PL designation from P or N. I think 64 is kind of optimistic and 58 too pessimistic, but haven't seen the coin in person and am going by the photo. $25, maybe $30.

Your opinions of the grade on this 1881-S Morgan I picked up today?

Comments

Leave a Comment