Assessment of these 2 morgans?

coinpictures · January 3, 2007 12:02PM

I'd like to get opinions on the following for each coin:

1. Technical grade accuracy
2. Aesthetics

There are things I like about both coins, and things I dislike, so I'm sorta hemming and hawing on keeping them.

Thanks!

Coin A. 1891-S. SEGS MS63. As I'm not a Morgan expert, what looks to me like wear (and thus potentially an overgraded coin) may be strike. Love the coloring though.

Coin B. 1888. NGC MS65. Coin seems ok on the technical merits, but the "smear" on the reverse bugs me a bit. Like the purple toning.

dragon · January 3, 2007 12:57PM

Coin #1 is a cleaned AU

Coin #2 looks ok

Rollerman · January 3, 2007 12:58PM

I'm surprised no one has commented on these two Morgans. They do represent a tough call.
The first coin, the 1891 S, has that gray look of an AU coin to me. I see it some in the fields and also the device on the obverse where I think the luster has been broken or rubbed. It has the look of a coin that was put away uncirculated but was mishandled over the years. To me it looks like a AU58.
The 1888 is a nice coin, except I'm a little leery of that "washed look" (I think you called it smear) on the reverse. It has few but noticeable bag marks right on Ms. Liberty's face which would keep it out of the MS65 class for me. Guess what I'm really saying is it might well be a 65, but I'd want to buy it for 64 money. It is a pretty looking coin and your image is quite nice.
Best wishes,
Pete

Bruceswar · January 3, 2007 12:59PM

<< <i>Coin #1 is a cleaned AU

Coin #2 looks ok >>

How do you figure coin one is cleaned? Dipped and retoned maybe, but not cleaned.

Newcomp103 · January 3, 2007 1:00PM

I don't think #1 is MS??? I could be wrong...but looks more AU to me...#2 has a nice eye appeal, even though the strike is fair at best.

kryptonitecomics · January 3, 2007 1:01PM

I don't personally care for either coin and the toning is actually a detraction for me instead of a positive. With that said the NGC coin looks like it could be a 65 but it's tough to tell from the image since it looks like quite a bit of scuffiness on the face that may not actually be on the coin. The segs coin just looks odd to me......my best guestimate would be lightly cleaned and retoned and if not....it looks pretty clean for a 63...I'd put it close to a 64 from what I can see it's just that the coin looks flat as far as luster etc on the obverse?

dizzlecc · January 3, 2007 1:07PM

I think the first one is au.

The second one I would grade ms64. The toning on the reverse does not bother me. It looks like it may be darker on the reverse.
It should be a pleasing coin.

ElKevvo · January 3, 2007 1:12PM

I would also have to go with AU55-58 on #1. The weakness on both the obverse and reverse is a bit much to be strike weakness for a S...also the cotton bolls seem to be a little worn in the photo.

I think the strike weakness on #2 would have limited the grade to a 64 but it is cleaner than a 64...a lower end 65 because of the weakness. Possibly dipped and an incomplete rinse accounts for the streaking? That aside it is a very nice coin.

K

Coxe · January 3, 2007 1:12PM

I agree that the first one is cleaned. You can see the wipe lines crossing on the central device (Ms. Liberty) from the fields. Even so, it is attractive. The toning is natural and it is not one of those crummy typical Redfields of the date. The cleaning is light enough to be market acceptable. It might be AU but it is impossible to claim with certainty that there is rub on that one, particularly because of the toning. If no rub, I'd say 63. Rubbed? 55-58.

The second one is more difficult to grade on the images. I'd guess it is in a 64 or 65 holder.

Assessment of these 2 morgans?

Comments

Leave a Comment