Options
New Morgan I received today, What will it Grade?
KyBoy
Posts: 70
Just got this 1896o today and wonder what it would grade?
Kenny in Ky
Kenny in Ky
0
Comments
AU55
Free Trial
Will’sProoflikes
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
bob
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
or
Genuine Not Gradable / 92
Kenny
BST Transactions: DonnyJf, MrOrganic, Justanothercoinaddict, Fivecents, Slq, Jdimmick,
Robb, Tee135, Ibzman350, Mercfan, Outhaul, Erickso1, Cugamongacoins, Indiananationals, Wayne Herndon
Negative BST Transactions:
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
My YouTube Channel
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
<< <i>In comparing to several NGC 55, 58, 62 at 5x etc and placing side by side it appears to be a 60, but you guys seem to be in the same area. I will slot it at 58 in my album. Not to far to go for a full set of morgans! >>
Was your comnparison of other 1896-O Morgans, or other dates? You should only compare same dates/mint marks. Particularly, this date is a tough date and all grading services are tough on this date. Same goes for the 1884S and 1886O, for example. I see what appears to be rub marks on the obverse, so that will knock it out of the MS category. If you truly feel the coin is MS, then perhaps a better picture is needed in order to judge better.
Kenny
<< <i>EF cleaned >>
EF? It may be cleaned but no way is that EF! Show me the wear that equates to an EF coin.
<< <i>Here is a NGC58. The photos are smaller than mine, but you should be able to compare. Notice the M on unum compared to mine or the right wing and breast feathers compared to mine and the hair right above the ear compared to mine. Clearly shows more wear than mine and it is a 58.
Kenny >>
Kenny, you are mistaking a soft strike for wear. Your coin has an above average strike (which is great), but that does not mean it is uncirculated. If you have not already done so, I suggest picking up the Morgan Dollar book that was put out by Redbook. You can read up on all the details in that book about the strike qualities of all Morgan dates.
You could send your to PCGS and see what it grades. I still say AU55. The AU58 coin you have pictured looks more like a 55 to me, too. If you do send your coin in, be sure to get rid of the apparent PVC damage on the lower reverse.
Good luck.
<< <i>Here is a NGC58. The photos are smaller than mine, but you should be able to compare. Notice the M on unum compared to mine or the right wing and breast feathers compared to mine and the hair right above the ear compared to mine. Clearly shows more wear than mine and it is a 58. >>
Kenny the hair above the ear is due in part to the lack of detail in this series. Compare the hair above the eye, there's where your wear is. It's still a very nice-looking coin, and your reverse pics don't show very much I'd be inclined to want to call wear. Its surface does look a touch "off," though; maybe cleaned, maybe the aftermath of an old dip, Nonetheless, no biggie, though, still a very market acceptable hard date out of this Mint.
Yep, EF. It might be above average, but it is still EF.
An AU coin has a slight trace of wear on the high points and typically shows slight disturbance of luster in the fields. Anything more extensive is not AU, but EF. The comments about "AU-50" or "AU-55" illustrate how deeply some have bought into the fiction of numeric grading, and how badly standards have eroded.
It is understood that most here will disagree - that is fine. Each has his own perspective.
<< <i>An AU coin has a slight trace of wear on the high points and typically shows slight disturbance of luster in the fields. Anything more extensive is not AU, but EF. The comments about "AU-50" or "AU-55" illustrate how deeply some have bought into the fiction of numeric grading, and how badly standards have eroded. >>
I think these days they call that "progress."
Anywho, FWIW, today I just call anything AU that I used to call EF back when AU wasn't yet in our vocabulary. Why do I put a number on it? Why does a dog stick its head out of the window in a moving vehicle? It just seems like the right thing to do...
Kenny
<< <i>Have posted new pictures now that I have some some better lighting. >>
OK, I'll be the first to say it, it's in better shape than I thought. The main drawback still seems to me to be the "muted" look. Off these new pics, though, I'm more inclined to want to throw the soft areas off on the strike, and call this, technically, a low-end MS. I don't know how the "market" would take that, though.
No matter what it will not hurt it and it might bring out some hidden luster.
please consider providing an explanation as to why the original pictures were deleted- adding more is great and encouraged- deleting pictures that folks relied on to offer an opinion is... well... not something that seems reasonable or fair if you are seeking opinions
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
It is a 55 at best, no 58 from what I can see just for the lifeless luster. Further, i don't like it. I see a lot of difference in the NGC 58 and this.
Best,
Eric
the original picture remains in the thread further down- I stand corrected on that point-
The coin is not original- it clearly has been enhanced-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Are you planning on sending it in?