• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Want to grade MY 1902-O Morgan Dollar

Started by RGT,

30 posts in this topic

RGT

RGT

Posted
Posted

No, I didn't post pictures of this one before, and I didn't want to derail Pendragon's thread so I started my own. I picked this one up on a whim a few weeks ago and had been thinking of posting it anyway. It is in plastic so you may see a scratch or two that's not on the coin.

46259-1902-Oobv.jpg.fe84109a6105bcdfe36838d41d6af9e8.jpg

46260-1902-Orev.jpg.30e13c9580d36f9de35dae3429d720a0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted

I'd be stunned if the coin graded less than MS62 (if it grades lower than that the images are misleading) and believe it to be a 63+. I am frankly baffled as to how some of you could grade it so low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arizonadesertrat

Arizonadesertrat

Posted
Posted
I'd be stunned if the coin graded less than MS62 (if it grades lower than that the images are misleading) and believe it to be a 63+.

 

I agree. MS60-62 Morgans do not have much eye appeal IMHO, typically because of too many bagmarks. This coin looks uncirculated with decent eye appeal, hence I think it warrants an MS63 grade (limited by a couple of notable obverse marks).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillJones

BillJones

Posted
Posted

It looks like an MS-64 to me if the center of the reverse in fact does not have a rub.

 

This is a very common date, and common dates get bulk graded. For that reason the slab grade could be between MS-63 and 65 inclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RGT

RGT

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wow. The grades are all over the place. Well, in hand, the coin has what I believe is an original gray skin. It's not as flashy as the dipped out white coins you see everywhere but it is a bit nicer than the images. Most of the marks are light and not as big as they appear in the picture. :grin: While it's not an upgrade candidate, I felt that it was average for the assigned grade.

46287-1902-Olabel.jpg.22d41eb210979d0cf56babb781adc795.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted
Wow. The grades are all over the place. Well, in hand, the coin has what I believe is an original gray skin. It's not as flashy as the dipped out white coins you see everywhere but it is a bit nicer than the images. Most of the marks are light and not as big as they appear in the picture. :grin: While it's not an upgrade candidate, I felt that it was average for the assigned grade.

 

I don't think any of the major services would grade it 64.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Wow. The grades are all over the place. Well, in hand, the coin has what I believe is an original gray skin. It's not as flashy as the dipped out white coins you see everywhere but it is a bit nicer than the images. Most of the marks are light and not as big as they appear in the picture. :grin: While it's not an upgrade candidate, I felt that it was average for the assigned grade.

 

I don't think any of the major services would grade it 64.

 

Chris

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they did. A number of the grading opinions (based upon large images which magnify the flaws) expressed in this thread seemed excessively harsh to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RGT

RGT

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yes, I think I made the pictures too big. I was trying to make them about the same size as Michael's. I got a new 22" wide screen monitor a couple of months ago and pictures just don't look as big as they used to. :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted

junk5185.jpg

 

Let me preface by stating that I defer to the experts in grading this coin. However, please let me point out the factors that led to my guess of "AU-55", granted that my guess was apparently way off.

 

I based my guess primarily on what appear to be circulation marks (as opposed to bagmarks), and secondarily on what appears to be circulation wear (as opposed to roll or bag friction).

 

In GREEN, I've circled what look like bagmarks to me - reed marks from the edge of another coin in one case, and just a typical bagmark in the other. There are several other tiny bagmarks throughout the rest of the coin, as expected of the issue and type. Obviously, bagmarks do not keep the coin out of a mintstate grade, but, in RED, I've circled what look like scratches to me, and scratches with erratic patterns like this do not occur from a coin being in a bag with other coins. They occur from being in a pocket with sharp objects, such as keys, rings, or other metal objects that were typically carried at the turn of the century. In BLUE, I've circled three areas that appear to have wear. Granted, on New Orleans dollars, these same areas often fell victim to a poor strike, but they look to be a different color from the rest of the coin to me, which is why I thought they represented rub.

 

Finally, the luster just doesn't look like that of an uncirculated coin, especially a near-mint piece.

 

Anyhow, I'm sure my assessment is wrong based on the huge discrepancy with the given grade, and it may well be mostly the result of an artifact of the imaging. I'm definitely not claiming to be right, but just thought it might be useful to point out what I saw.

 

Great thread!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kryptonitecomics

kryptonitecomics

Posted
Posted

I agree with the grade of MS64 from what I can see......looks like a solid coin and in hand I am sure the flaws wouldn't be as noticeable as these big scans would suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arizonadesertrat

Arizonadesertrat

Posted
Posted
junk5185.jpg

....

Granted, on New Orleans dollars, these same areas often fell victim to a poor strike, but they look to be a different color from the rest of the coin to me, which is why I thought they represented rub.

 

Finally, the luster just doesn't look like that of an uncirculated coin, especially a near-mint piece.

....

Great thread!

 

It's always interesting to read what different collectors conclude when viewing the same coin. A post noting that the large size of the images fooled some of us, into thinking that the contact marks are worse than they really are, is spot on.

 

As noted earlier in this thread, it's not really appropriate to compare the fullness of strike of Morgans made at different mints and/or in different years. The same goes for luster----many mint-state 1902-O Morgans have unimpressive luster. Even among Morgans made in just the year 1903, the typical mint-state luster ranges from satiny (1903) to nearly booming (1903-S) to frequently rotten (1903-O).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RGT

RGT

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you James for the time you spent analyzing the picture and explaining your grade estimate. If my pictures are a bit deceiving it was through incompetence rather than intent. I'm not a closet Morgan collector and only own a handful of these so I'm no expert, but I do have the advantage of seeing the coin in hand.

 

I don't actually have it in hand at the moment, but I will comment on a few of your points as best as I can from memory. The mark above the date is definately a scratch or scrape but I couldn't tell you if it was made by a key or a glancing blow from another coin. The mark on the bridge of the nose doesn't really look like a scratch to me. It also doesn't have the classic reedmark pattern. (shrug)

 

In hand, the cheek looks fully frosty with nothing that hints wear to me. It is probably the lighting that gives it that darker rubbed look. At the risk of pushing this thread past it's usful lifetime I will try to get a better image of the cheek area tonight. The other two highpoints you pointed out are difficult for me to analyze. To me, most Morgans look beat-up and worn in those areas and I just haven't looked at enough of them to say.

 

Typically, on smaller coins that I am more familiar with, I will see some discoloration or imparment of luster in the fields even on AU58 coins. Contact with other coins or even flat surfaces (coin cabinets, flips, etc.) will put rub on the high points but leave the fields untouched. But fingers always put rub on the fields unless special care is taken which would be unlikely for pocket change. That's not to say that simple cabinet friction wouldn't put the coin in the AU range with no field rub though, just a general observation.

 

It's always interesting to read what different collectors conclude when viewing the same coin. A post noting that the large size of the images fooled some of us, into thinking that the contact marks are worse than they really are, is spot on.

 

As noted earlier in this thread, it's not really appropriate to compare the fullness of strike of Morgans made at different mints and/or in different years. The same goes for luster----many mint-state 1902-O Morgans have unimpressive luster. Even among Morgans made in just the year 1903, the typical mint-state luster ranges from satiny (1903) to nearly booming (1903-S) to frequently rotten (1903-O).

 

I certainly don't know much about a date-by-date-by-mint analysis of Morgans, but this coin does have unimpressive luster. I thought it was from the somewhat thick original skin.

 

I picked this coin up on ebay several weeks ago and I was impressed with the "look" of it when I first laid eyes on it. It wasn't the beautiful tone or the mark free surfaces but the original skin and overall look of the coin that I liked. Of course if this coin only grades AU then I am buried in it for life since I paid $31 delivered. :insane:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pendragon1998

pendragon1998

Posted
Posted

I'm no expert, etc, etc...

 

My feeling on the coin is that the coin is a high-63 / maybe a low-64. The marks on the nose, neck, and above the date hurt the most. I think that the area above the ear isn't wear - I think it's a mushy strike. Note how the cotton bolls have little detail in the 'dotting'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing