EagleRJO

I have been doing quarter rolls and it hasn't been that bad, where you would expect that due to the heavier coin weight going into the bin at the mint.

New rolls of nickels with bag marks everywhere?

No fill-ins of any of the missing Morgans for that collection? I have been struggling to acquire some of my missing 1890's Morgans, particularly the Carson City ones in the desired grades, due to the cost. But I keep putting in bids on them so it's only a matter of time.

We are lucky to have @Sandon on the board. Truly a wealth of knowledge picked up from collecting for over 50 years. He has been a tremendous help to me when I was first looking into Morgans, and continues to help me, as well as countless others. And now, It is really invaluable for me to have a sounding board like him, @Coinbuf, @RWB, @J P M, @JKK, @Just Bob and others here. About Sandon's newbie replies, I think he has his road rash "error" posts down pat (attached), and just fills in the "Bla, Bla, Bla". ------------------------------------------------

I agree with Sandon that it looks like a Fine - Details grade normal 1888-O Morgan, and is not the "oval" variety. You can check out VamWorld [http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/Home] to find out which VAM number it may be starting with the position and font of the date and mark. Once you have identified the possible VAM number download the full coins pics if available. You can also download another 1888-O VAM full coin pic or a PCG$ CoinFacts pic if needed, but the position of the date and mark may vary as those were hand punched into the working dies. Then compare the details as a good step in authenticating the coin. Note that the PCG$ F15 example attached does have the more valuable "Oval O" mint mark. But the normal mint mark 1888-O really isn't worth much, particularly a Details grade (probably around melt value) so you may want to skip the last part, which can be a little tedious. http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/1888-O_VAMs NGC Price Guide for 1888-O Morgan

Are those pics photoshoped? [jk]

I think Coinbuf hit the nail on the head. "Magicians Coins" are made with a metal lathe to remove one side of a coin leaving the rim, and the reverse has that appearance. Then a coin face insert from a different coin is pressed into the cut out side. The coin face insert for the reverse may have fallen out, or maybe they just didn't finish it as that is very precise and tedious work. Video on The Making of a Magician's Coin

I have my "Slab Cracker" tool from Wizard Coin Supply (attached) ready to go. I was jk, and would likely just keep it raw. But I remember hearing a while back that they were a little more realistic with older circulated coins that may have had a light cleaning. Maybe that has changed or it was just a rumor.

There you have it, multiple opinions that its post-mint damage, which I agree with. Keep in mind copper is a very soft metal, and parts like top of the "7" on a 1957 cent, which is 95% copper, can be displaced and the bottom has been knocked off. If you do a forum search you will find multiple topics where parts of a copper cent have been moved or displaced, and then wear sometimes hides evidence of that displacement. Also If you want to know more about true error coins see these links ... https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1655/Variety-versus-Mint-Error/ https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/7765/learn-grading-mint-errors-part-1/ https://www.error-ref.com/

NP, it would just go in my collection of raw coins anyway! But if I wanted it to grade higher I could just send it in to ANACS.

Yea, I think it likely was in some other type of holder like a pendant or keychain clasp (like the attached) noted by Powermad , as the "good luck" token pictured appears to just have a press-fit cent (with the rim still visible) that wouldn't result in depressed rims as the op's coin appears to have.

That as well as other coins were chop marked (e.g. US Bust and Seated half dollars as well as Seated dollars), but entire runs of those coins from a mint were not bulk shipped directly to the Orient for use in trade, as they were for certain US T$ like the subject chopped 1874-S Trade Dollar. Bags of these 1874-S Trade Dollars were then evaluated by "Shroffs", typically working for banks relative to the US T$ as they were sent in very large bulk shipments, and then chop marked if legit. So still a unique situation that deserves special consideration in my mind, in agreement with the PCGS position. That would normally be the case, but I think PCGS has a compelling position on straight grading US T$ given the unique circumstances related to that. That is what draws me to chop marked US trade dollars. When I look at some of the chop marked Trade Dollars I have and hold them in my hand (no they are not in coin coffins ), I can picture a trader at an Asian sailing port in the late 1800's maybe flipping one in the air to pass some time or handing a bag of them to a merchant to purchase things like silk.

I occasionally see "Details - Cleaned" coin coffin labels by one of the big boys and just shake my head as I couldn't see any indications of the coin being cleaned, where they are possibly just going by the overall appearance. Same here, depending on how extensive and visible the hairlines are with just coin {or slab) in-hand or at like 5x magnification. For the subject coin they are clearly visible throughout the fields on both sides, but that is from viewing high resolution photos enlarged. If I end up scooping the coin with a "JPM bid" I will check back in after I have cracked the coin coffin to set it free and taken a close look with the coin literally "in-hand", and also viewing it with my mag glass.

@J P M That's what I did too, and it's much clearer. I agree the grade seems to be a fairly accurate assessment of the coin based on the pics, even though I think it likely had a very light cleaning at some point. Note that the coins I cleaned myself with a silver polishing cloth had a very similar random pattern as I was not just rubbing it in one direction. I don't really think NGC missed the hairlines. I think it's more likely that either they were not considered significant enough for a details grade or they made an allowance for a 140 yr old circulated coin. I'm not really concerned with some random hairlines in the fields as they are fairly subtle and present on lots of older circulated coins, but was curious what others thought about that. I will likely try to scoop it with some lowball bids, or better known as a good "JPM price".

I have close to 100 Morgans in my complete circulation set, and have looked at countless hundreds more acquiring those. I have never seen a Morgan in a slab with that many hairlines which wasn't graded Details - Cleaned. It also looks almost exactly like some junk circulated silver coins I lightly cleaned with a silver polishing cloth, and not like any bag marked Morgans I have seen. Some of the hairlines are fairly long and non-linear, which I don't think could be produced by being jostled around in a bank bag. It also has gunk in protected areas as Bob noted. This one would not be considered harshly cleaned. And I am not criticizing our host for straight grading the coin as it appears to be very fine or subtle hairlines seen on a lot of older silver coins. It was just that I have not seen one straight graded with that many hairlines, so it appeared to be a lightly cleaned coin that simply got a deserved pass by the TPG considering the age of a circulated coin.

I agree that the color and sheen appear to be natural. The reason why I suspected it was cleaned at some point in the past is the presence of what appears to be hairline scratches throughout the fields on both the obverse and reverse. It looks like the type of hairlines which would result from rubbing the coins with a silver polishing cloth, which I have done using some junk silver coins with similar results. I attached higher resolution pics of both sides which should more clearly show these hairlines. I would have to go back and look, but I believe it was Bowers book on Morgans which notes that a while back, perhaps in the 1960's, it was thought to be acceptable to lightly clean circulated silver coins by like 90% of dealers and collectors. And it was estimated that as a result many circulated Morgans (not mint state) in collections or stock were lightly cleaned with a cloth or perhaps soap and water while rubbing them with your fingers. Both of these methods were noted to be common and acceptable at that time for circulated coind, and will produce hairlines in the fields. Which is why I may be able to lowball the bid on this coin.

If the counterfeit was created utilizing the most common "Transfer Die" method, sacrificing a legit coin to create an Impact Die, all of the detail including chop marks would be reproduced. This also results in a somewhat "mushy" appearance as there is a general loss of some detail pressing a coin into a die. https://www.pcgs.com/News/The-Fundamentals-Of-Counterfeit-Detection--Part-1 The only thing I am left scratching my head over is the chop marks with the small mint mark, but I guess it's possible.

This 1880-CC Morgan dollar looks cleaned [with hairlines throughout]. Did NGC give this coin a pass as many of these were cleaned?

I am going to pass on this one. Thanks for everyone's feedback. Nearly all of the 1874-S T$, as well as some other T$ issued, were shipped to the Orient after being struck for use in commerce, and then were summarily chop marked by "shroffs" (Chinese authenticators) working for bankers and merchants after verifying a coin was legit. That is a very unique situation which in my mind deserves special consideration. I cant think of another coin where anything remotely similar occurred.

I specifically look for trade dollars that have chop marks, but not overdone as I think it gives them character and history, which is a variety and not damage per PCGS. https://www.pcgs.com/News/Pcgs-Now-Designates-Chop-Marked-Trade-Dollars I think it's a small S mark, which is unusual for a chop marked T$ as the vast majority are normal S marks which were shipped directly to Asia for use in trade. The small S marks were not shipped, which was kind of a flag to look closely.

The 1874-S has a notoriously weak strike, so I wasn't sure if the "mushy" appearance may be the result of a significantly weak strike on that coin, possibly combined with somewhat blurry pics.

Came across this chopped 1874-S Trade Dollar, but the details seem a little mushy (poor pics?) even though they seem to generally match, including inscriptions as well as the date. Also the fields appear a little grainy. Pics are not the best, but other than that I don't see any significant issues or wear even at high points, like Liberty's knees or the eagles wing tips, without any apparent luster so likely an AU grade if legit. Thoughts?

Keep in mind that even at melt value a dealer is entitled to make some money on a transaction, so expect to be offered below current melt value for the coins.

I think he figured out copy and paste

The mind sees what it expects or wants to see