Guess the grade- 1884-O Morgan
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on -
This coin appears to have a very weak strike. I can't rule out cleaning either. However, I do think this coin probably graded somewhere around MS64. If it had a better strike, it would probably have graded MS66 to MS67.
-True Money!
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on -
Here are a couple more pics with a different lighting setup to try to give a better idea of the coin:
-
Permalink Reply by Lee Grant on -
Grading of this type is not my forte, nevertheless, I will comment because I have an 1884 O, which is in excellent condition. The only thing my untrained eye sees is that the stars and edge definition on the obverse lower right hand corner appears to have either some wear or weak strike. I am not able to make this kind of distinction. The reverse appears about perfect. There is no way I can tell from a photo whether a coin has been cleaned. I give this an MS 67.
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on
-
The second images reveal a few more contact marks. The coin still appears to have a weak strike, limiting its grade to no higher than MS65. I still believe the coin graded around MS64 because of the weak strike. It is a really nice coin Buffalo. However, the detail expected in the higher grades does not appear to be present within this coin. This includes the hair details around the ear of Miss Liberty and stronger details in the eagle's breast feathers. This is essential in achieving the highest grades. I have a couple of similar coins with weak strikes and very few contact marks. They each graded MS64 with PCGS due to the weakness in strike.
-True Money!
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on
-
This coin went to PCGS also. We'll give it a day or so for other comments and I'll post how it did. I am getting to the point I'm going to have to invest in a good camera setup and some new lighting. My current camera is still acting weird with exposure and saturation varying all over the place under the exact same conditions and settings. It is making it very difficult to get any good shots that are really accurate to the coin and even shots taken back to back one right after the other can be completely different. Anyways, not trying to be misleading with the pics, it's just getting more and more difficult to get anything to look like the coin even adjusting the images with a photo editor.
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on
-
I completely understand. It has taken me years to learn how to do this photography. The problem is that it is a continuous learning process and very tedious and time consuming. Please understand. I am just giving an approximation of what I can visually see with this coin. Remember, good quality photographs of coins are infinitely better than any scan.
-True Money!
Buffalo said:This coin went to PCGS also. We'll give it a day or so for other comments and I'll post how it did. I am getting to the point I'm going to have to invest in a good camera setup and some new lighting. My current camera is still acting weird with exposure and saturation varying all over the place under the exact same conditions and settings. It is making it very difficult to get any good shots that are really accurate to the coin and even shots taken back to back one right after the other can be completely different. Anyways, not trying to be misleading with the pics, it's just getting more and more difficult to get anything to look like the coin even adjusting the images with a photo editor.
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on
-
No problem TM, I wasn't taking any offense at anything you said and hope I didn't give that impression. It irritates me when I just can't really capture a photo of the coin that really looks "right" but any frustration apparent is with that, not anything you said.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve W on -
This coin checks out with the usual "Morgan Grading Criteria" However, I cannot discern good mint luster and the strike seems weak. Lots of bag marks. I would give it a 64 at best. My 1887 MS 65 looks better, but then I am not conversant with all the different Morgan varieties, VAMs, etc.
-
Permalink Reply by Lee Grant on
-
I just don't understand this entire grading phenomenon. Looking at older coins the grading appears to be hypercritical. But the new crap coming out of the Moy Mint, gets MS70's. A Morgan dollar suffers from a "weak strike" but a proof gold Buffalo, which has no definition gets an MS70. It makes me question the value of the entire system. Has politics gotten into the coin collection business?
-
Permalink Reply by Steve W on
-
Lee,
Many people would question the logic of the hobby in general. Why would a group of old men (mostly, sorry Susan) sit around and worry about things like the "appearance of a coin"? When I mention "bag marks" or "mint luster" my friends and family just look at me like I am infected with early dementia. I am sure that they would roll their eyes at the thought of TPG! They will eventually benefit from my investments, but I am sure that the collection will be rather swiftly sold after my departure!
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on
-
Lee, one other thing to keep in mind about grading is that the grading companies do take into account general characteristics that are common to a series or a particular issue. Coins that in general had very good strikes may take more of a hit for a very weak strike. Coins like Morgans where bag marks are common might get a little more leniency for marks. A really good book that goes into all of this in detail for different issues is the Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection published by PCGS. It also has some good information about counterfeits as the title says.
The O Mint Morgans in general had fairly weak strikes. My photos don't do it justice but the one I posted here has (in my opinion) a better strike than the other 1884-O's I have. Two of those are graded MS64, one in a old Rattler slab and the other in an old green label slab so graded quite a few years ago when some say standards were tighter. Personally, my experience with the Morgan grades over time doesn't bear that out.
The one I posted here though did not grade as "code 94" which is altered surfaces and different from improper cleaning. It is the first and only time so far out of more than 300 raw coins I have submitted that a coin didn't grade. If you look closely at the first obverse photo you can see a "granular" surface especially on the face. Looking at the coin since I got it back, I believe the coin has been thumbed or some material applied to conceal the problem. It is almost impossible to see looking at the coin itself without magnification even knowing it's there and actually is much more obvious in the photo. So this one is just to share a lesson I learned to be careful and be critical and use a loupe.
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on
-
Technically, cleaning is altering. Even the best photos can't reveal this type of alteration unless specifically focused upon. I do believe you will see the altering if you observe this coin with a microscope under 20X to 40X magnification. As I said previously in my original response, I could not rule out cleaning. Areas to key on are the cheek of Miss Liberty and the hair. All contact marks should show flash when the coin is moved around in the light. This coin does not. Additionally, you need to inspect the cartwheel of the luster and ensure that the luster is uniform throughout the surface of the coin. This is one of the major reasons you need to physically inspect a coin in hand.
Technically, I was right. However, the coin appears to be in MS64 condition for the most part. This is why you cannot rely on buying raw coins unless you either physically inspect them first or they are already graded by a reputable grading company like PCGS.
Great post Buffalo!
-True Money!
© 2012 Created by coinnetwork.
