Options
Morgan $1 1884-S Grade Revealed = PCGS AU50... "New Pics Posted" :)
Broadstruck
Posts: 30,497 ✭✭✭✭✭
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
0
Comments
au58 or ms61 super tuff date to get a grade by the way
If the answer is yes, then my guess is MS 61-62
If the answer is no and this is really how the coin's surfaces are -
if you then are serious about having it graded - DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!
If this is how it really looks, it could get bagged (that's the down side)
At best, it's beat up all to be geezus, so don't waste your money cause wishing &
hoping for MS 61-62 cause that's what you'll be doing! (but I suspect you already know this!)
JMHO - NO Expert!
<< <i>Is this coin already certified and are the scratches (some of them) actually on the outer part of the slab?
If the answer is yes, then my guess is MS 61-62
If the answer is no and this is really how the coin's surfaces are -
if you then are serious about having it graded - DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!
If this is how it really looks, it could get bagged (that's the down side)
At best, it's beat up all to be geezus, so don't waste your money cause wishing &
hoping for MS 61-62 cause that's what you'll be doing! (but I suspect you already know this!)
JMHO - NO Expert!
These are the sellers pics so I can't answer your question as to marks on the holder reflecting on the coin, but lets assume they are all on the coin for now.
Secondly it is already in a PCGS TPG holder.
<< <i>Take away all the bag marks and other activity and it's actually NOT a bad coin!
Thanks... and the same could be said about TENS of THOUSANDS of coins!
I suspected as much!
I hadn't noticed the date & MM either - just looked at a Morgan's surfaces and strike.
I can tell what is definitely "bag marks" however the lines that bothered me (for starters) is the one behind her head!
OK - so she IS PCGS holdered! Good!
I'll go with a wild guess of 61 and some of these marks are on the outer part of the slab!
Strike itself is nice. All the "other activity" is what troubles me.
PCGS 61??
********************************************************************************************
<< Thanks... and the same could be said about TENS of THOUSANDS of coins! >>
Amen!
those high points play more then the fields unless i'm wrong
I'm sticking with 61-62 topside.
Nice coin! Tough date & MM.
I don't see a whole lot of "wear", do you?
Bagmarks - Yes! Wear - NO!
It's definitely an UNC coin!
i don't see any personally
the reverse should lock in ms
the obverse and those darn curls just can't be made out but can't be less then 58---i'd think
but this is one super tuff one to get ms
with this...mees done and awaits the grade
Not sure a for a second it looked like a die clash... but not so.
Based on the image I feel there's some PL patchiness on the Obverse and Reverse
Well there's 2 sides to every coin and on this example the reverse is the far cleaner on the 2.
Based on the image there's full breast feather detail on the eagle.
I'll await the verdict.
Sharps STRIKE/ NO Wear - Mucho distactions
(in the fields but NOT the focal area) = Bagmarks = UNC
Who wants a little "friendly action"!?
<< <i>At least from the pix there seems to be no wear or rub, but the heavy marks on the obv mite knock er down to 58 territory, but I'll stick with 60/61. >>
Looks like a lot of members are teetering but sticking to something!
<< <i>I wager it's MS.
Who wants a little "friendly action"!?
What are the odds 2:1... can I bet too
Yes you can but since you have the Inside Edge and am probably using Reverse Psychology, YOU gottal give ME odds! or even steven! 1 to 1. Ha!
Boom, It will also allow you to rack in some dow on the betting action!
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>Looks like a very nice specimen for the date. Great strike and no indication of wear on the devices. No rectangular box around the date or IGWT, a common sign of a messed with coin. Looks authentic. One problem is the rim cuts over UNITED. I think that would kill the possibility of making PCGS plastic, though could be overlooked elsewhere. Hard to say for certain, but there might be small cuts at the rim over CA, 180 degrees from the obvious ones, possibly indicating a old jewelry mount. The luster break SW of the earlobe on the back cheek might draw an altered surfaces charge. Scratches evident in the right obverse field and possibly minimized by the image could be obvious cleaning in hand, but there is no way to be certain one way or the other from inspecting the images. If any wear is on that coin, it would be AU58. In the absence of wear, it is MS62. I think ther eis probably slight cleaning on the obverse, which may have been face up in an old mount. The coin is damaged. On another date, it might be overlooked. 1884-S is singular in the level of scrutiny it receives however. I would be surprised to find it in a PCGS holder. That said, it is otherwise a superb looking example of this tough date that is almost always unattractive. This is a date where a very nice slider is more presentatble than most technical UNCs. >>
Wow superb post Coxe!
I'll mention again that this example is PCGS certified and that any rim issues seen is the plastic from the holder as this is not raw example.
<< Secondly it is already in a PCGS TPG holder. >>
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>I don't like what's going on above and below IGWT or the field chatter on the obv; AU58. >>
The chatter as your calling it above and below IGWT is very common on even BU to CH BU 84-S
<< <i>I didn't read the thread....never do on these grading threads, as that can influence me. In PCGS plastic? I guess they would have gone MS61 or MS62, hopefully the latter. Again, the minutest wear that would be dismissable on all other dates (including 92-S and 93-S) could draw an AU58 for this one particular date. I see no obvious wear. Even the eagle's leg feathers and the lower wreath are both struck up and devoid of luster interruptions. Not sure that I am comfortable with that rim. Doesn't look like one I would consider cracking and resubmitting myself. Of course, that's not something you do with an 84-S Morgan that has made UNC plastic anyway, assuming that. I also didn't mention that it looks toned. The first two left obverse stars are haloed, which can be a scanner artifact depending on the luster but can also suggest local toning. Again, based on the images, I like this coin a lot. It is an extraordinary presentation of that difficult date. >>
I'll post my own pics once in hand as it is in transit
Didn't I learn in school never end a sentance with the preperation With.
I can't spell either!
Thanks for the info Broadstruck; if I HAD the kind of $$ to even consider buying this coin as Unc, I'd pass.
<< <i>"The chatter as your calling it above and below IGWT is very common on even BU to CH BU 84-S"
Thanks for the info Broadstruck; if I HAD the kind of $$ to even consider buying this coin as Unc, I'd pass. >>
As Coxe mentioned below "this tough date that is almost always unattractive"
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>Hey, check this out!
Wow Boom now it looks like a $250K NGC MS65
First time I ever tried anything like this!
I'd be HOMELESS!