EagleRJO

In the middle, right over the coin. Where else would it go.

If you are referring to my comments your right I am upset with the mint for vomiting out poorly designed and struck Morgans in 2021 and 2023, including the one I posted in another topic even though it looked pretty clean. Like look at the mushy details of say the hair lines, wheat elements, cotton elements and the cap fold just as a few examples and compare those to earlier date Morgans [prior to 1921].

I just usually see little things on these coins, but sometimes they are super clean like with this one so I was curious what others thought.

Your right it's a proof

I was looking at some of the coins I recently received from the mint, and a 2023-S Morgan looked pretty clean (even though I think they are all poorly designed and struck for that year due to the computer "enhanced" low relief dies and press speeds used). Still, I note a rough grade in my logs and was thinking it might grade out 70. Note that it is so mirror like that the tan color is my ceiling being reflected off the fields of the coin.

I don't know if it's intentional since looking at the Obv and Rev side by side doesn't seem to show any opposite side damage around where the mint mark is, even with a slightly rotated die (see attached). Looks to me like a plating bubble or blister error around the mint mark, although a minor one without any added collector value. It's still an interesting find though that the op may want to hang onto if they collect cents. https://www.error-ref.com/blisteredplating/#:~:text=Plating blisters Definition%3A This error type occurs only,as are contaminants within or under the plating.

Agreed about them, which is also beyond my knowledge too. But don't sell yourself short as I have seen many posts by you accurately accessing coins, providing useful information I wasn't aware of, and being very helpful to newer ppl on the board. Looks like the "green bean" is now part of the CACG logo to go on every slab, both with and without the "+" designation, which less savy collectors may mistake for the old bean. That may be intentional. Hmmm, are these "Dolly" holders only for large coins? Or maybe for any flashy coins like the attached "Dolly Holder"

Not really that much off topic as @Ohnoimbroke was asking about the grade designations and the CAC stickers. I think your right that every CACG slab will have a CAC like sticker on the label as their signature logo, even if it straight grades. Attached is an example from the CACG website showing a straight graded coin (i.e. no plus or "+" designation) that has the CAC sticker like logo. I bet that will confuse some collectors who might think it's a "green beaned" MS65.

I agree with the mantra of collecting the coin not the label, as do some others on the board such as @Sandon and a few others. I don't care what a label says, I am going to look at the coin in the holder and make my decisions based on that. There have been a few cases where if I just bought a coin based on the label I would have ended up with an under-graded coin. And sometimes there are substantial premiums just based on a label, where the coin is nothing special, which to me is a waste of money. However, some collectors like coins associated with a certain person who collected the coin or where the coin came from (e.g. the "Great Southern Hoard"). It"s not for me, but I understand that. The PL (prooflike) designation has been around for quite some time, but the "+" and "*" grade modifiers are relatively newer. See the following link to the current NGC grading scale and grade modifiers which includes "+", "*" and "PL" grade modifiers. https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/grading-scale/ The current "+" designation is essentially meat to convey that a coin is exceptional within a given grade, approaching the next higher grade per the link above. The "+" designation is essentially what a coin with a CAC sticker used to mean. I'm not aware of any coins with a "+" designation that also have a CAC sticker, but if so imo that would be redundant. It would be a no-brainer for CAC to slap a sticker on a coin with a "+" modifier. More recently CAC has entered the TPG arena and is grading coins, which is different than the CAC stickers. I'm curious to know if they also use a "+" designation for exceptional coins like the other TPGs, or if they add a CAC sticker to exception coins they have straight graded. 🤔

Yes. I have already been schooled on this. Wasn't trying to do that, just use the comment to post some examples and Coinbuf schooled me as I inadvertently posted a PCG$ Generation-1 green holder ("rattler") and not an OGH Gen-1 label from my examples folder. I know, it can get confusing. I wouldn't expect anything less as members like @Coinbuf and @Sandon really keep you on your toes.

You missed my point just restating what I said and giving incorrect information as I believe @Sandon posted a pic of what I believe is a pewter continental dollar and I was asking him to confirm. I remember from a while ago on another topic that these coins in pewter actually look like silver coins but they are not, and the silver ones actually appear darker.

Agreed, but even though I look at the coin I still identify the holder to see if it's one people might submit unreasonable bids on just because of the holder.

Your right, I just posted the first green holder, which is a "rattler", with a PCG$ second genetation green holder. Fixed to what is referred to as a (Green) "Rattler", an OGH Gen-1 (PCG$ Generation-2 holder) and OGH Gen-2 (PCG$ Generation-3 holder), or at least that is how the are referred to on Great Collections, with "Gen" being the generation of the original green holder and not the overall generation for PCG$. Also, it would probably be helpful to add a pic to each holder type, with the first 3 posted by me above.

Aren't there several possible metal types that present differently as they weather and wear like silver, pewter and brass. Is that one pewter or possibly silver?

That's not a PCG$ OGH (Original Green Holder). There are a few generations of the green holders, but attached are the original PCG$ Gen 1 (Not an OGH), OGH-Gen1 (PCG$ Gen-2 holder) and OGH-Gen2 (PCG$ Gen-3) are attached. When I see these at auction I immediately close out the window (or don't even open it if I see OGH) as there is a common (mis)conception that ALL the older OGH holders have undegraded coins, so people go ga-ga over them without even looking at the coin. In reality it's only some, like with an exceptional appearance.

And here I thought I was doing a good job of hiding my general dislike for the 1921 Morgans, because the mint just had to crank up the coining presses to strike a total of about 85 million coins for that year from the three mints with limited equipment, and had to consistently overuse the working dies. They were a little hard to fully strike up the devices anyway due to the design and speed, resulting in most being poorly struck even though they used shallower relief dies. They were more concerned with the quantity even if it resulted in inferior coins. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/9742/USA-Coin-Album-morgan-silver-dollars-1921/#:~:text=Some differences are evident when the 1921 dollars,notable for often being less than fully struck. Nevertheless, I have all the 1921 P, D & S Morgans in raw BU grade, as well as all the 2021 and 2023 proof Morgans from each of the mints and privy marks in OGP for my complete circulated Morgan set. But I only have one of each for the collection.

Might be an ancient Greek or Turkish coin, but you need to post cropped pics (like the attached which ends up being a larger image in your post) that also need to be in focus. Also try getting a little closer to take the pic and rest your hand on something to steady the phone/camera. In addition, if you measure the diameter within 0.1 mm and the weight within 0.01 grams to post, one of the members like @JKK or @RWB who are more familiar with ancients may be able to help.

What, you couldn't make up your mind which 1921 (P) to keep with them all suffering from weak strikes?

Thanks for that link. It looks like a good article to spend some time going through. And I really like they way your coin photographs come out.

That poorly struck 2023 Morgan just looks horrible, with the computer aided clip art "enhanced" design that Coinbuf noted and as unbashfully boasted by the now woke mint. It just looks like a fake coin with a "mushy" appearance and lack of fine detail, and is still poorly struck. I did purchase a 2023 Morgan for my complete set hoping they would have corrected all the issues with the 2021 Morgans everyone complained about, but I was sorely disappointed when I received the coin. If that wasn't enough, it was also still sent in the cheap dollar store like box with a poor quality dinged up capsule again. I'm actually thinking about just sending it back to the mint now so I don't have to ever look at the coin or cheap dollar store box again, and using the money to buy several of these cheesy looking AI coins to add to my silver melt hoard.

Funny thing is there are fakes or "counterfeits" of the mountain guys coins. http://www.moonlightmint.com/fakes.htm Prolly only a matter of time before some bozo counterfeits the AI coins.

In another life a while ago I was a serious film and then later digital photographic enthusiast, and I took legit classes that made a huge difference and had fun playing with the chemicals to develop and print out the pictures. Surfing the web and watching vids helped, but there was no substitute for the in-person classes. And I do remember that lighting is hugely important. Local community colleges typically offer continuing education digital photography classes at a reasonable cost, which is what I would recommend. Particularly if you're serious about it and considering you loaded up on some good equipment. @VKurtB may also have some other suggestions, tips or links to helpful websites as he is one of the more knowledgeable photographic enthusiasts on the board.

And also to make them stackable. Good info and analysis of the worn and damaged cent.

That mountain guys 2022 (particularly the CC) and 1964-D fantasy Morgans or tokens are a substantially better quality than the Morgans the mint has been vomiting since 1921, and particularly the poorly designed and struck 2021 Morgans the now woke mint puked out. Hmmm, the US mint engaging the services of a "counterfeiter" to design coins for them, and PCGS and ANACS certifying and slabbing his "counterfeits". Yea right. https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-d-1-x-383-peace-dollar-daniel-carr-fantasy/877747

Cleaned coins can sometimes be difficult for newer collectors to pick up, but after you have seen enough of the good and the bad as Sandon suggested the light bulb should come on. Also check out PCG$ CoinFacts which have certified examples of various grades for each coin, as well as an excellent custom registry set @Sandon put together with examples of cleaned coins with descriptions linked below. https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/wcm/CoinCustomSetView.aspx?s=31632 If you recently purchased this coin you might have a shot at returning it if it wasn't listed as cleaned. But it's not a valuable coin, so you could save some postage by just hanging onto it as a silver cull coin or as a reminder.