Any guess on the grade of this Morgan?

bigtime36 · October 25, 2006 10:29AM

Anybody have a clue as to what this may grade? Sorry about the second picture.

MrSpud · October 25, 2006 10:32AM

EF

prooflike · October 25, 2006 10:33AM

AU50?

bhartman35 · October 25, 2006 10:34AM

I'm not a Morgan expert (or any other kind, for that matter), but I like it! I see a lot of detail in the hair, but I can't make out the cotton boughs well enough to see what kind of shape they're in. Looks like a rub beneath Liberty's eye...

AU-58? <== WAG

Leiana · October 25, 2006 10:36AM

Is that supposed to be an 1888 S? It looks like an 1882 S that someone messed with...or something. Perhaps the 2 is not showing well in the photo.

-Amanda

coinman420 · October 25, 2006 10:37AM

its really hard to tell from the pics but first one looks like a scan and shows more detail. second pic looks like a photo and shows less detail and more luster. i`ll take a ballpark guess of AU58-MS63. without better photos we`re just guessing.

TorinoCobra71 · October 25, 2006 10:39AM

AU53........

TorinoCobra71

bigtime36 · October 25, 2006 10:40AM

Let me try to get a few better pic of it real quick and then let you decide. Thanks for the input so far. Its the only one i have left out of about 300, 40-60 were CC... They were stolen

ROBERTB · October 25, 2006 10:42AM

Are you guys al smokin' crack? Maybe it's my screen, but, the obverse looks well worn to me, XF40 at best.

bigtime36 · October 25, 2006 10:47AM

GoldenEyeNumismatics · October 25, 2006 10:48AM

AU53

Coxe · October 25, 2006 10:57AM

Middle-grade AU. I'd say AU53.

sweetwilliet · October 25, 2006 11:04AM

That coin has much better details than just ef, I would grade it au53-au55.

coinguy1 · October 25, 2006 11:05AM

It looks like an AU55 or so to me. It's probably the image (since the reverse looks OK), but the obverse almost looks like a counterfeit to me.

bigtime36 · October 25, 2006 11:19AM

What makes it look counterfit? Im just asking, I know for a fact that it isnt but just want to hear the reasoning

coinguy1 · October 25, 2006 11:28AM

<< <i>What makes it look counterfit? Im just asking, I know for a fact that it isnt but just want to hear the reasoning >>

I'd love to be specific, but can't - my apologies. Something about it (flatness, dullness and lack of contrast between the fields and devices, perhaps) reminded me of groups of counterfeits I have seen on Ebay fairly recently.

Leiana · October 25, 2006 11:33AM

Going along with what Mark said, that's what I thought, too. The color is very uniform and the piece looks very flat (in lustre and definition). And the last digit of the date looks odd. But this is probably an effect of the lighting, as the out of focus shot of the reverse did display lustre and contrast.

-Amanda

Wolf359 · October 25, 2006 11:34AM

I also came up with AU55. Luster is a bit worrisome.

Rickyroooo · October 25, 2006 11:50AM

I have to agree with Amanda on the date, that last 8 just does not look right, More like an original 2.

Rickyroooo · October 25, 2006 11:55AM

Just curious as to how You no it is not a altered coin?

Rickyroooo · October 25, 2006 11:56AM

know

bigtime36 · October 25, 2006 12:19PM

Lets put it this way maybe it is maybe it isnt but my grandpas brother started collecting them in the 1920's and its been boxed since. Woo Hoo my 100th post

messydesk · October 25, 2006 12:43PM

1882-S AU55

Myqqy · October 25, 2006 1:21PM

Au55 as well....

BlindedByEgo · October 25, 2006 1:24PM

Maybe just the image, but looks flat and lifeless in the picture.

I grade it $12-$14.

dorkkarl · October 25, 2006 9:20PM

au-50

K S

Bobk · October 25, 2006 10:09PM

AU55. Bob

JWite · October 25, 2006 10:13PM

If the luster is missing, I would say AU55.

morgannut2 · October 25, 2006 11:43PM

An 1882-S realy is't worth messing with which is what bothers me. It has the very clean (unabraded) surfaces, but near total lack of luster. I would SPECULATE--can't ever say from images---that it might have been out of the darkly toned "Paramont (Redfield) Hoard and was so over-- toned, it just had no luster left after someone dipped it a few times. My other total guess is somebody simply polished it up very lightly a long time ago--giving it the dead no-luster "look"

Of coarse everyone else could be easily correct--a dipped out XF45 to AU-53. Who knows--I sure don't!!

ABC123 · October 25, 2006 11:45PM

If Genuine--50

Any guess on the grade of this Morgan?

Comments

Leave a Comment