Question for the Morgan collectors on board

HonoluluDude · April 16, 2007 1:56PM

What are the years most common for PL or DMPL?

Also, what's the best way to get rid of a fingerprint without
messing with the integrity of the coin?

DJCoinz · April 16, 2007 2:04PM

1881-S and 1880-S. To the best of my knowledge there is no way to remove a fingerprint without chemically altering the coin.

CoinHunter2003 · April 16, 2007 5:02PM

What DJ says: once a print - always a print!

DMPL & PL you'll see a lot on Ebay - I don't collect
those Morgans. It's either Proof or MS or Circ. Hype =
added $$$$.

Alex

morgansforever · April 16, 2007 8:02PM

1879, 1880, and 1881 S Morgans are quite common in PL and DMPL state, and affordable.

As far as the finger print, tough to get rid of

TennesseeDave · April 16, 2007 9:04PM

Here's an 81-S I have that is still raw until I get a few more to send in.They are fairly common,but I still love them for the prices that they can be had.

HonoluluDude · April 17, 2007 2:54AM

<< <i>1879, 1880, and 1881 S Morgans are quite common in PL and DMPL state, and affordable.

As far as the finger print, tough to get rid of >>

Crap, I just got a really nice 81-S PL in the mail yesterday.
There is a nicely defined partial fingerprint at the top of the obverse.

How do fingerprints affect grading?

GoldenEyeNumismatics · April 17, 2007 5:34AM

<< <i>1881-S and 1880-S. To the best of my knowledge there is no way to remove a fingerprint without chemically altering the coin. >>

ricko · April 17, 2007 6:03AM

Unless you get the fingerprint immediately with Dawn or another greascutter (let it set, no abrasion), it is likely you will never get rid of it. Cheers, RickO

Coxe · April 17, 2007 10:38AM

1880-S, 1881-S, 1879-S C rev, 1884-O, etc etc etc

A fingerprint on a DMPL is pretty much permanent. I know of no reasonable way to conserve such a coin. Perhaps if it is a fresh print, something could be done before it reacts with the surface though.

The rarest dates BTW IMO are (in approximate order) 1884-S, 1901, 1896-S, 1903-S, 1894, 1904, 1892-O, 1921-S, 1892-S, 1893-S, 1883-S, 1896-O, 1897-O, 1902, 1904-S, 1894-O, 1893, if we exclude the excessively rare overdates and overmintmarks 1882-O/S and 1887/6-O and the impossible 1900-O/CC. The 1892-S and 1893-S are on the list but many UNCs and Aus do exhibit some prooflike qualities, though not generally DMPL. The CC dates, including 1889-CC, are grossly overrated in DMPL. 1893-CC is the tough one in that group and not in the league of the top rarities.

dorkkarl · April 17, 2007 10:49PM

several cc's are awful common in pl as well

K S

Question for the Morgan collectors on board

Comments

Leave a Comment