EagleRJO

Yea, the first time I saw that mark on the obv I was like "ah, they put a W mint mark on the obv" ... them I realized there was no way a mint mark would end up there, and looked up what it was.

Thanks for the help. Were the scuff marks I was seeing on (1) an indication of cleaning (e.g. in the field behind the head, by the nose and around the eagle feathers)? And I thought (2) might have been dipped or cleaned/buffed, cause something was bothering me about that coin. Is that the kind of white-washed appearance a lot of eBay coins have from cleaning/dipping? Also (4) seemed to have some toning, and what appeared to be just some scuff marks in the field around the eagle's feathers. How do you fake that toning?

I was thinking about doing halfs next because I have a bunch of rolled ones, but I don't often see them in pocket change around where I live, and picking through people's pocket change would be part of the fun for me. [For half dollars I probably stick with older 1933 and earlier dates, and just collect some of the various types as I am doing now. Or perhaps start an older half dollar collection at some point in the future.]

Bullion coins may not be uncirculated depending on how you get them. But the US Mint does not refer to bullion coins as "uncirculated" coins. That is a dealer convention (which I say is intentional mis-marketing ... lol), and the US Mint only uses that term for "burnished" coins. And here is another example of a bullion coin that was NGC graded/slabbed with no mint mark. Hog ... NP, I think you need to have your morning coffee first before posting ;-)

Well, labeling a West Point bullion coin with just "2022" without any letter or "2022 (W)" is essentially the same thing. I guess he could request the 2022 (W) if NGC was willing to do that no charge, considering he says he did put the "W" on the submission form. I am assuming you haven't had your coffee yet Hog, so I won't quote the typo ... ;-)

Jimbo is correct. The mark on the obverse are the initials for the designer of the Walking Liberty which that design is based on. If there is no mint mark on the reverse (likely not with that NGC label) then it's a bullion coin, intended to only be of value based on the amount of silver it contains. Only the "Uncirculated" coins (what others call "Burnished" coins) and the Proof coins have "W" mint marks on the reverse, or "S" mint marks later this year. See attached pic and links below. If you did submit a burnished coin, with a "W" mark on the reverse, then that label is a mistake, and you need to contact NGC. In any event I'm glad you got an MS-70, even if it is a bullion coin worth only a little more than melt value. ;-) Some people confuse the burnished coins with bullion coins available from dealers, because the dealers often sell the bullion coins in BU condition, meaning Brilliant Uncirculated. The BU just indicates they took the bullion coins from large, sealed boxes they got directly from the mint, which have not been put into general circulation, and not that the coin is the more collectable burnished coin. I say it might be intentional mis-marketing ... American Eagle Silver Bullion Coins | U.S. Mint (usmint.gov) 2022 American Eagle One Ounce Silver Uncirculated Coin | U.S. Mint (usmint.gov)

Thanks, I only included (1) for grading purposes, but it was a "Micro S" which could kill 2 birds except it doesn't fit with my min XF grade. And my gut feeling about (2) was that something was off, like dipped, cleaned, etc. I did like (3) as something to consider if priced right for an XF. I also saw the attached (4) 1903-S which I also though was an XF

Okay, I can't resist ... you guys sucked me into this debate over the older "Technical Grading" vs the newer "Market Grading", even though I am a newer coin collector. Correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you guys will ... lol), but isn't the older Technical Grading based only on the physical condition of the coin where either there are certain features of a coin present or not, and the variations of that feature in between (e.g. not visible, significantly worn, moderately worn, slightly worn, not worn, etc.). But that style of grading may not consider all of the factors that can affect the value of a coin to a collector in the open market like strike quality, toning, luster, eye appeal, etc. which are considered in the more modern "Market Grading". I can see the side of the argument for Technical Grading which may be more of a purist point of view as it would be consistent and absolute from coin to coin, and not be significantly affected by what could be very subjective grading opinions that would be more likely to vary from one grading expert to the next. However, you could have 2 coins that grade the same, but one coin is worth more because of a more desirable appearance or pedigree. As a newer collector I find it very useful to have grading that considerers subjective qualities that can affect the value of a coin, instead of having two coins with exactly the same grade varying in price based on how they appear. And wasn't the original intent of the Sheldon scale to standardize the value of large cent coins with a multiplication factor between 1 and 70 that would indeed consider market factors based on what the coin was worth in the open market, and then work backwards to a number which was then described. Starting with a base value of 1 for a particular coin when you could just barely establish the type of coin (e.g. for a large 15 cent coin that could be barely identified, it would have a grade of 1 and be worth 1 x 15 cents in the open market), a G4 would be worth 4 x 15 cents or 60 cents in the open market, on up to say a perfect MS-70 that would be worth 70 x 15 cents or $10.50. Seems to me that the original intent of the grading scale was to establish value in an open market, working backwards to a number, and that the present Market Grading which considers more subjective factors associated with the strike and appearance is just a natural extension of that. Just my 2 nickels as a newer collector. Okay I have the flak jacket on for the replies, which seems to get a little heated sometimes, and I may have opened a can of worms I really shouldn't have ...

Wait, you guys are confusing me. So, they didn't first strike the 1886 coins with a filled in die to flatten all/part of the date and then strike it with a die that had the "7" in the 1887 date, or what I was calling re-striking the coin? I was led to believe that "re-striking" a coin could be done in one of two ways: (1) simply strike another coin with a new die, without first flattening the feature to be changed (like the 1795 half cent you posted); or (2) first strike an old coin with a die that has the features you want to change filled in (e.g. the "6" in 1886 is filled in), in order to flatten that element, and then strike the flattened coin with a new die that has the desired element (e.g. a die that has the 7 now in the 1887 date), like the 1887 "7 Over 6" coin. What am I missing here, or when you guys say "re-striking" is that only technically a reference to the second part of the multi-step process?

So the US Mint would not flatten the date on a 1886 Morgan with a filled in die, and then strike the 1887 date (the multiple steps)? How did we get the 1887 "7 Over 6" coins?

So here is the next group with three raw 1903-S Morgan Dollar coins I saw listed where I'll take a shot at grading them and get some feedback to continue getting better at evaluating grade. Again, I'm using current PCGS grading example photos and descriptions, as well as descriptions specific to Morgan Dollars in the Red Book. (1) I would say it's a VF. Moderate wear throughout and loss of some detail like hair lines near the eye on obv, and eagle feathers on the left wing and breast. Letters, numbers, rim and major design features remain clear even if worn a bit. I was thinking at first it might be a borderline F-VF due to the wear of the eagle feathers and what may be some wear of the rim on the obv at 5 o'clock, but for F you would expect half of the detail worn flat which is not the case. Has a small S or micro-S just as an FYI. (2) I would say it's a XF+. Only Light wear at high points. Rim, letters, numbers and major features clear and visible. Features like rim, hair lines, ear and eagle feathers bold, except on breast of eagle which shows some wear. The only thing about this one which seemed a little off was somewhat of a whitewashed appearance, but it may just be the photo is not that great with some reflection. (3) I would say it's borderline XF-AU, or AU- if there was such a thing. Not very much wear at all, except maybe some feathers on eagle's breast. Rim, letters, numbers and major features all clear and bold. I was thinking it may be a low-end AU, but there are just too many dings, scraps or scuff marks.

I only buy the proofs because I have the uncirculated bullion coins (like Mint Direct or Mint Sealed, not burnished) going back to 2005, plus a few other years, for little more than bullion bars. For the Proof ASEs no more really nice blue velour spring-loaded clamshell style display boxes since mid-2021 (see the pics). I swear it's because the US Mint is running out of money ... But maybe that's a better way to go because some put the proofs in TPG slab coffins. JP, you can buy them separately ... OGP Box & COA - 2021-W Silver American Eagle Proof (Empty)

The pics are a little blurry so it's hard to say, but I am kind of in the middle of other ppl on grade and either (1) it's an XF-35 but those are very blurry pics, or (2) it's a VF-25 to VF-30 with somewhat even wear of the details (e.g. hair line on obv and eagle and crescent around the eagle on rev). The latter is more likely.

Thanks, on to my next challenge which is the 1879-CC and 1879-S Rev. of 78 Morgan Dollars.

Running with that for arguments sake, I checked prices for a high-end VF through PCGS (I don't see RB or NGC gets that granular at VF/XF grades with their price guide.). Looks like those high-end VF's (or VF+) are going in the $285 to $300 range, as compared to XF going in the $375 to $400 range. I think I am still good at $305 and will pull the trigger because I like the coin.

The re-striking may have been in multiple steps, but in my mind was simply re-struck over existing 1886 coins, or what seems to just be called a "7 Over 6" ;-) I'm not saying that 1887 is a "7 Over 6", but there may be marks around the 7 which in my mind warrants at least looking into that.

I don't think I would ever be able to buy a coin like that priced at high-end VF, and I have been finding most are asking $400 to $500 for similar ones.

I didn't mean to suggest that you could opt for capsules, but mussing about the mint going on the cheap and first sending out the proof coins in these cheap plastic capsules set in super cheap plastic holders with glued on felt just stuffed in a box ... and that maybe next the mint will decide to send them out in the cheap plastic capsules wrapped in old newspaper and stuffed in plain folded up bubble wrap with scotch tape to make a shipping bag ... smh. The US Mint must be running out of money ...

Guys I was looking for feedback as a newer collector related to some raw coins I may buy, not start a debate over grading standards, although I understand it's important to know how grading standards have changed over the years. Now, what do you guys think about the 3rd coin? I like the coin which should fit in my AU/BU or XF Min. Morgan collection. Looks like the final offer is going to be $305 for the XF/XF+ coin which seems reasonable to me for that condition coin in the middle of $260 NGC, $325 RB and $385 Greysheet.

Morgan Silver Dollars are all over the place in terms of value, with most that were in circulation being worth little more than the content of silver in the coin, and with a handful of less common ones being worth much more, even in poorer condition. It's understandable that your running into issues trying to value the coins without enough information needed for that, particularly the condition of the coin. It would be like saying you want to sell a 1986 Ford without the buyer knowing the model, mileage and condition of the car. Unfortunately, the coin in your hand appears to be a regular issue 1887 coin from the Philadelphia Mint, with a lot struck that year (20 mil) compared to other years/mints, so it's likely very common even without a lot of wear, which that coin does not appear to have. One thing to note about that coin is that there is a variation worth significantly more than the average coin from that year and mint. It's one where an 1886 die was re-used with an 1887 date that didn't hold up, called a "7 Over 6" (see pic), because a 7 was struck sometimes with indications of the old 6 present. There may be some marks around the 7 on that coin, but it's very difficult to see due to the significant toning of the coin. Have someone check for that looking at the actual coin (forget more pics, it won't help), before you sell the coin. And like others have noted don't actually handle the coin with your bare hands as that gets oils on the coin. Good luck with selling them, and I wouldn't go too nuts on driving significant distances unless there isn't a local coin dealer who you can show the coins to that you feel comfortable with. And ask about the "7 Over 6" for the 1887 (P) coin.

So, you think even the proof enrollments are going to just get the cheap plastic capsules? What are they going to do, wrap it in old newspapers or left-over gift wrap and mail it to you in a plain cardboard box like some of the eBay buys you get ... smh.

Thanks, I have pretty much accepted the fate for some of my pricier future coins that they will be locked away in TPG slab coffins, where the value is going to be over like $500 (plus a few will likely be in the thousands, and one Morgan and some others I like may break the bank). It's just the way it is in terms of not being an expert and needing to protect myself in term of value as well as the risk of fakes at higher price points. I understand the fakes are getting pretty hard to detect for the average coin collector even with checking dimensions, weight, magmatism, etc.

I prefer to learn/use modern grading standards and valuations, which is why I use and reference the standards, photo grades and guidelines currently available through PCGS & NGC, as well as the guidelines for each series of coins in the Red Book. Very handy to have guidance specific to the coin in hand (unless your beautiful coin is locked away in a coin coffin, never to be touched again ... lol). However, a historical understanding of past standards and how that may impact current valuations is extremely useful. For example, I just learned about the PCGS green labels, and know about the GSA CC coins. Not a given that if you buy a green label or GSA that it will grade higher, but just the common belief that it will happen raises prices, so I have been staying away from them. I don't like coins in slab coffins anyway or sealed GSA coin hiders, so no big deal for me. In any event, I appreciate everyone's help and guidance. I am going with my first gut reaction to seeing the 3rd coin that' it's an XF and maybe an FX+ and make an offer based on that as well as the NGC and RB values in the range of like $300 to $325 and see how it shakes out.

I don't see that it replaces or eliminates the individual program enrollments, but maybe that's why the last popular coins did ship out enrollments but weren't even avail to the public thru the online store cause they were already sold out.

Maybe starting in 2023? I just confirmed that my 2022-S Proof ASEs from the Proof ASE program enrollment are going to be fulfilled/shipped in August. If they do switch I imagine that they will sell them to dealers at a hefty bulk discount, and without the cost of boxes, which could be a bulk separate buy, so that with a dealer mark up it may be the same price, or maybe less w/o a box if you plan to get them TPG slabbed. The only bummer is that it would be bye bye being pretty confident you would at least get 3 each production enrollment.