Not a Morgan man--how's this 1885-O?

gyocomgd · November 23, 2005 8:22AM

The fields look real clean and the luster is super, and it has nice detail for an O series. Beyond that, I'm lost. I'm frequently surprised by reactions to what look to me like excellent--or poor--Morgans when pics are put up. So your thoughts on grade, etc.?

MrSpud · November 23, 2005 8:25AM

I'm not the expert but I say 63, would be higher if the hit on the cheek and in the fields on the reverse wasn't there.

razorface1027 · November 23, 2005 8:26AM

nice 64.

Tom

coinbuf · November 23, 2005 8:51AM

64 mabey 63 on a bad day.

Chris

MikeInFL · November 23, 2005 8:53AM

65

markglicker · November 23, 2005 8:54AM

63 or 64. Decent coin.

ziggy29 · November 23, 2005 8:59AM

solid 63, shot at 64.

ddbird · November 23, 2005 9:00AM

64 and pretty unique.

Normally the obverse is ripped up and the rev. is clean. Yours is the opposite.

jayboxx · November 23, 2005 9:08AM

62

RedTiger · November 23, 2005 9:11AM

My first impulse is 65, then I see the reverse, so 64. Has to be as you say though, knockout luster (can't tell that from picture) or zero chance at 65.

ziggy29 · November 23, 2005 10:03AM

<< <i>62 >>

It won't be only a 62, IMO. Not an '85-O. It's a common date even in top condition, so I think the TPGs would give it every benefit of the doubt. 63 minimum, and given the small increase in value from 63 to 64, it probably gets 64, especially since it seems to be an adequate O-mint strike.

If this were a condition rarity, it probably goes 62 at PCGS.

arlea1957 · November 23, 2005 10:06AM

64

rsdoug81 · November 23, 2005 10:52AM

64 obverse/63 reverse. I think it could probably sneak into a 64 holder.

bonkrood · November 23, 2005 11:06AM

63/64

Not a Morgan man--how's this 1885-O?

Comments

Leave a Comment