EagleRJO

You also didn't take a good pic of the obverse with a level date so you can look closely at how the date lines up.

Some recent "corrupted collector" additions to the Morgan collection, including the first one MS graded instead of BU. These were coins where I was having trouble finding decent ones raw for a good price, and actually ended up getting the slabbed ones for less in the end by being patient and occasionally bidding low on what I was looking for.

Yea, tell me about it ... it's a jungle out there and a lot of cleaned/dipped raw garbage. Nice coins.

You get charged a premium for a graded/slabbed coin, with the 1892 not that expensive a coin to begin with. It's why I and others like VKurtB will not be submitting these coins for grading any time soon. A $40 to $60 nice raw coin jumps up to $80 to over $100 slabbed so I'm not even considering that, even as a crack-out due to the low initial raw coin cost. I stick with sellers who have an unconditional return policy so that I can get the raw coin in-hand to examine, no matter how good it may look from pictures. I just try and avoid wasting a lot of everyone's' time by closely looking at any pics and doing a little digging or post for some feedback if I have concerns. [P S. There were 2 coins, with another one similar to the orig one posted from the same roll/source, which went for $43 and $48 which is about what I thought. I decided to try for the brighter 1892 one with less dings posted later.]

Well, I sure won't be holding my breath, the grading cost is prolly more than the coin. Btw, the attached is another 1892 I am considering which is cleaner with a lot less contact marks, but with what appears to be less detail which may not have been as sharply struck. Then again, it may just be slightly out of focus. I was originally thinking of going with this one and just seeing how it looks in-hand.

Too funny ... those pesky nickels trying so hard to get back into circulation instead of being embalmed with acetone and locked away in a slab coffin.

Thanks, I think I did see that one but ... it's not an 1892 first year of issue, it's an 1893 that looks like it has more wear and less detail vs others for that year I have seen, like the attached 1893 50C Commemorative which I may get to have both an 1892 and 1893 issue. The one I originally posted is an 1892 which are a little less common in better condition/grade, but still not that expensive. So, the question remains as to if what I am seeing are random contact marks throughout as suspected and shown in my preceding post with a close-up.

They do not appear to be scuffs or longer length scratches or gouges from cleaning, at least to me. Those are the short length dings or contact marks I mentioned that are throughout both the obv and rev. Attached is a close-up of some of them on the rev at the top, to the left of the upper sail which is one of the circled areas from your post. Looks like typical random contact marks, and not cleaning scratches or gouges.

As with any coin you are buying from the web with just pictures you can't really be sure about some things. It's why I only buy raw coins online if there is an unconditional money back guarantee, so I can get the coin in-hand to carefully examine. And I am curious if our resident photo expert @VKurtBhas any further thoughts on photo appearance. But I an not seeing any signs of a cleaning. What are you guys seeing that I am missing to be able to state it was cleaned, or is that a presumption based on appearance which I agree is a darker appearance that lacks significant luster. But that might just indicate an AU or Unc condition without that brilliance I usually see from raw BU coins. Also, like many other older raw coins it may turn out it has had a light cleaning or a light dip in the pool. But it is very common to encounter, something I might even expect for better condition older raw coins. Many of those will even straight-grade its so common and known if light enough. So that really doest bother me as much if I am going in eyes wide open and it's priced accordingly with a good sense of the coin grade I will end up with.

I thought you meant that you were working on buying the coin from a seller at a set price under $100. If its being bid how do you know it's a shot at under $100 as there is often a flurry of bids at the end? Are you like the Great Carnac? 😉

The first pair of pics (top) are for the listed raw coin I saw, and the second pair (bottom) is a mid-MS grade from PCGS CoinFacts to compare wear of the coins, not really to compare luster which is different. I agree the first/listed coin is darker/duller and also may have had a light "dip in the pool" at some point in the past as it is an older raw coin, but it's possible that's a poorly lit picture. Focus point per ANA for wear are the eyebrow, cheek and forehead hair on the obv as well as the top rear sail and right side of the globe to the far right on the rev. I am seeing a lot more dings or contact marks on the first/top listed coin, but in general not much wear at all particularly at the focus points. It even looks like some areas like the head, shoulders, boat and globes are showing more detail zooming in and comparing the two. I am also not seeing any cleaning scuffs or cleaning scrape marks, or classic signs of a cleaning like dark areas within and around devices, letters and numbers, particularly with the "O"s. My guess is that the first/top listed coin is just Unc. with no brilliance left for it to be a BU due to the darker appearance and possible light dip.

I have been collecting half dollars when I find ones that are interesting or look good. Another topic got me interested in this as a pretty inexpensive coin that was the first year the US issued commemoratives. I came across the attached raw 1892 Columbian Half Dollar Commemorative which actually looked pretty good, with the second pic being the closest match. Thoughts?

I don't know much about nickels, but have you compared to the CoinFacts examples to get a better idea on grade and that it's legit. Looks like more wear than the XF and the price seems too good to be true for a 1927-D 5C 3-Legged, even at a lower grade.

I'm still not seeing an issue if you get a coin you are happy with at or lower than far market valuation which are based on a mix of auction and sale prices. Are you aware of any data that may point to significant increases in bid prices for online vs live bidding which might suggest widespread online hacking to artifically raise prices? I'm not seeing that for some of the coins I have been bidding on lately, and maybe even higher live bid prices possibly from higher buyer premiums.

Similar to AAPLCC standards, but just not as well known for road rash pieces. [AAPLCC is American Association of Parking Lot Coin Collectors]

Sorry the "official" ANA grading standards for parking lot coins don't allow split-grading.

What is your concern with proxy or automatic incremental maximum bidding? That another very similar coin went for less? I think that's going to happen even with exactly the same coin. If you get a coin for the price you wanted and you are happy with great, but it sounds like you are just second guessing yourself from seeing a similar coin go for a little less. Although I have been doing more bidding for coins I am interested in, particularly at Great Collections, I "trust" online bidding as far as I can throw it until I actually get the coin in hand to closely look at it. Bottom line is if I get a coin I expected and then like when in hand for what I wanted to pay.

Is that going in the nickel "Bad" slot or the "Ugly" slot?

Sounds like you are good ... well, I mean the coin. 😆

Hmmm, now idk if that entry would make it past Technical Qualification for a "Parking Lot" coin. We're there cars parked in this "yard"? And having stripes on you isn't the same as having stripes in a parking lot. 😉

Is that copper? I ask since that is a very soft metal where things can get pushed or moved around. Check out the "E" in the ONE of a copper penny from another post.

I actually think the Mint did a good job of reproducing the obverse design from the 1-oz Saint double eagles and improving the strike quality for the production of modern 1-oz gold coins. [See attached, but that really doesn't do them justice like having those coins in your hand.]

I am not saying they needed to produce more 2021 Morgans, and maybe even striking like 100k would be enough. But ZERO is a long way from that, maybe even a slightly lower number and improve the quality which should be done anyway.

I just recently added a 1903-O and 1904-O both in BU grade to the collection, and my eyes still have not recovered. Especially when not viewed looking through a plastic slab coffin. 😉