jgrinz

Well looks as though you got the answer already - No and No 

:-)

8 hours ago, Truly Clean said:

I'm not much of a fan of toning, but that one is SWEET jgrinz !!

I like original looking coins … It was with a bunch of other morgans I bought for resale

2 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

I don't even know what to say about that awful looking thing.

I like the date personally  :-)

2 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I definitely would have avoided this coin. That scratch is huge, and no way it should have straight-graded (in my opinion). I'd call it UNC Details, scratched. 

Without the scratch, I'd call it a 62 due to the severe marks on her cheek and neck. 

It was a VERY cheap purchase and ended up with a VAM-36a consolation prize :-)

9 minutes ago, Kirt said:

Ok. I'll take that feedback. Not the first time I've heard I can be harsh on grades at times; I'll take the learning on what is acceptable at 62. The only one where I'll stand my ground is that right wing. If that is in fact a scratch and not a die gouge, that's almost as bad as the scratch on Liberty's hair -- to me.

I agree with @jgrinz on the not a straight grade; that obverse scratch. As far as the VAM goes, my eyes failed the test. I knew there was one in there and spent a good 30 minutes trying to figure it out!

 

It was incredibly tough to picture … Blow the picture up then back away from the monitor … it becomes clearer.

Yeah its a anchor :-)

Numbers are wrong 

Stars are wrong 

Reverse between the "E" and The "D" metal is flaking off 

Rim looks curled - Just say NO  

I do not like the grade and think it should have been detailed because of that substantial scratch. The early posted coin of mine the 1887s

the scratch was minuscule as compared to this and got detailed. The only thing I like about this coin …. Its a VAM-36a

CLASHED "E" - How are your EYES  :-)

1 minute ago, Walkerfan said:

Wow, that scratch really kills it for me.......would be, at least, an easy 64, otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned the coin is damaged but my guess is that it has been net-graded to 62.  

Caught me in mid response - I think this should NOT have been graded - The scratch is substantial. MS62

32 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

My first thought was 62, then I saw the scratch, so 61.

Should have stayed there :-)

15 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Why even mention that it’s not a trick GTG?

i grade the coin 62, due to the scratch through Liberty’s hair and the facial marks. However, an MS63 grade wouldn’t surprise me and a details-grade wouldn’t shock me.

I did a tricky one previously hence the statement ...

Can you guess the grade and discuss 

11 hours ago, Terence:) said:

Just a follow up for those interested in the grades on the Morgans. I just got the update and put them in a new set category ... here's the link. 

https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/267493/

Nice result - Did you not pay the extra for VAM attribution ?

That's c00l looking  :-)

This is what I use - I did some mods to it to make it more effective but works well.

AMAZON

Honestly haven't used it on coins before but works great on cars.

WD40 - then of course rinsing that off after  :-)

That kind of looks like a cleaning and retoning

Nice details and I am not seeing anything that says its not authentic.

It may come back as cleaned as below the "S" looks vigorously so, BUT, it will be protected for the coins future protection.

It even was a circulated coin that was plated … 

My other issue is that who would really copy a VAM designation as this is a VAM-4 which have the CC's

Tilting left. If you want to make a comparison of the authenticity ( MINE IS NOT A VAM 4 but a 5a  ) Click my Morgan link on my

tag line - I have a VG10 which you can compare if it helps the OP

8 hours ago, Kirt said:

Agreed with one quibble - I see it as G-6. Rim damage is a crapshoot! 

I went down a notch possible 2 cause of the rim damage ( damage NOT wear ) 

Almost looks like it was mounted and bent the rim 

The reverse picture, which is much better the obverse, Look at 12 oclock / 6 oclock / 7 oclock and 9 oclock.

I have no problem with an AG3 on this coin @JKK

Looks real to me 

Looks like a G-4 

IT probably will come back as a damaged details holder because of rim damage

IMO

1 hour ago, Revenant said:

Well, guess that narrows down for you when it was graded. Lol

I wish NGC made it publicly available when a coin was graded for all coins and not just for the coppers where guarantee expires after 10 years.

Yeah  .. interesting thought though / Was thinking holder and not the coin  ahhaahah

Found it 

1989 Gen 2.1 - Scarce - Used from Oct-Dec 1989

Waiting for an answer across the way … Anyone know if this is a fake slab.

Has a rattler front with a newer type reverse.

Serial number works if you add a zero in the front of it.

Is this a half year after the rattler