Home› U.S. Coin Forum
Options

Guess the Grade, 1878 8TF, 1886-O Morgan Dollars. **GRADES POSTED**

TorinoCobra71TorinoCobra71 Posts: 8,055 ✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum
1878 8TF Morgan Dollar:

image
image

1886-O Morgan Dollar:

image
image

TorinoCobra71
image

Comments

  • cmerlo1cmerlo1 Posts: 7,947 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1878- MS-65

    1886-O AU-58

    Both are in ANACS slabs.
    You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
  • StuartStuart Posts: 9,793 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I agree with CMerlo1's assessment:

    1878 MS-65

    1886-O AU-58

    Both are very attractive! image

    Stuart

    Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal

    "Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
  • bigmansam88bigmansam88 Posts: 1,209
    1878 - MS-66

    1886 - AU Details (Cleaned)

    Is it just me or does the 1886 look like it has hairlines all over it?
  • BobkBobk Posts: 593
    78 MS66PL, 86O, this one is tough, MS64. Bob
    Pecunia in arbotis non crescit.
  • Newcomp103Newcomp103 Posts: 2,223 ✭
    WOW...what a great looking 8TF!! image...65...maybe 66? And yes...I think the 86-O has been cleaned...if what I am seeing are hairlines....but I would say AU details.
  • DennisHDennisH Posts: 14,010 ✭✭✭✭✭
    MS64
    AU55
    When in doubt, don't.
  • AnkurJAnkurJ Posts: 11,370 ✭✭✭✭
    1878: MS 65 Proof Like

    1886: MS 64
    All coins kept in bank vaults.
    PCGS Registries
    Box of 20
    SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
  • relicsncoinsrelicsncoins Posts: 8,103 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'll go 64 on the 78, and 53 on the 86.

    JJ
    Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
  • dohdoh Posts: 6,457 ✭✭✭
    I guess it's just the pic, but the 78 looks polished to me. It's definitely unc though. The 86-O is a cleaned AU53/55.

    Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
  • TorinoCobra71TorinoCobra71 Posts: 8,055 ✭✭✭
    Here are the slabs:

    image

    image

    Y'all pretty much nailed the 1886-O it is AU55 Cleaned. You can plainly see the hairlines on it.

    Now the 1878 8TF ANACS got totally wrong. AU50 Whizzed, my a$$. this coin is just a straight up UNC GEM. It might get cracked out....I also have a 1881-S that ANACS graded MS61 that is a solid 63 with a shot at 4. It seems since they changed ownership their grading standards are ALL OVER THE PLACE. image

    TorinoCobra71
    image
  • CalGoldCalGold Posts: 2,608 ✭✭
    ANACS got it right on that 8 tail feather. Take a look at the devices, stars and letters. There is not even a trace of mint frost on them anywhere. It has all been removed by some abrasive method. That explains the unnatural look of the coin.

    CG
  • TorinoCobra71TorinoCobra71 Posts: 8,055 ✭✭✭


    << <i>ANACS got it right on that 8 tail feather. Take a look at the devices, stars and letters. There is not even a trace of mint frost on them anywhere. It has all been removed by some abrasive method. That explains the unnatural look of the coin.

    CG >>



    ANACS DID NOT GET IT RIGHT on the 8TF. whizzing leaves behind noticeable hairlines. I have viewed this coin under a 10X Loupe and there are no hairlines on this coin. The coin has UNC details for sure. How did they come up with AU50???? They got it wrong on both accounts.

    TC71
    image
  • bigmansam88bigmansam88 Posts: 1,209
    I've heard that ANACS is getting much tougher with grades and is grading perfectly fine coins

    as problem coins. I agree with the assessment of the 1886-O, but the 1878 looks WAY too nice for AU.
  • dohdoh Posts: 6,457 ✭✭✭
    I think AU50 is way harsh on the 78....and "whizzed" may be the wrong terminology, but the surfaces have something going on. Maybe just overly dipped? I can't tell from the pics.
    Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
  • ziggy29ziggy29 Posts: 18,668 ✭✭✭
    I think they nailed the '86-O. As for the '78, AU-50 details are absurd. It looks like MS details and perhaps NET AU-50 (if they were still net grading these). No AU-50 has that much detail on the breast feathers and above the ear. Can't comment on the whizzing part without seeing the coin in hand.
  • GoldenEyeNumismaticsGoldenEyeNumismatics Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭
    Looking at the 8TF I noticed before I even saw the posted grades that the coin was "not right." ANACS is 100% correct--the coin is whizzed. Resubmitting will just be a waste of money.
  • GoldenEyeNumismaticsGoldenEyeNumismatics Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭
    BTW, I believe ANACS got both of these grades 100% correct.
  • Newcomp103Newcomp103 Posts: 2,223 ✭
    The pics of the 1878 sure make it look like they got it wrong Gary! I dont see rub on any part of that coin!
  • sweetwillietsweetwilliet Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭
    "I think they nailed the '86-O. As for the '78, AU-50 details are absurd. It looks like MS details and perhaps NET AU-50 (if they were still net grading these). No AU-50 has that much detail on the breast feathers and above the ear. Can't comment on the whizzing part without seeing the coin in hand. "

    Basically, I agree with all he said.
    Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    Will’sProoflikes
  • GoldenEyeNumismaticsGoldenEyeNumismatics Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭


    << <i> I dont see rub on any part of that coin! >>



    That's because any signs of rub have been whizzed away.
  • TorinoCobra71TorinoCobra71 Posts: 8,055 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I think AU50 is way harsh on the 78....and "whizzed" may be the wrong terminology, but the surfaces have something going on. Maybe just overly dipped? I can't tell from the pics. >>



    I totally agree with this statement. I am Thinking that the coin might be overdipped or could have been wiped at one time, But the coin does not look whizzed in any way, IMHO.

    TC71

    image
  • GoldenEyeNumismaticsGoldenEyeNumismatics Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>I think AU50 is way harsh on the 78....and "whizzed" may be the wrong terminology, but the surfaces have something going on. Maybe just overly dipped? I can't tell from the pics. >>



    I totally agree with this statement. I am Thinking that the coin might be overdipped or could have been wiped at one time, But the coin does not look whizzed in any way, IMHO.

    TC71 >>



    It looks exactly how a coin whizzed with a thicker wire would look. The bands of luster do not differentiate between the fields and the devices, there is no frost, and it has an overall unnatural look.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...