1879 - O GTG

[Coinbuf]

Playing with the lighting, still not great but have a go at this lady's grade.

[jayman1970]

MS-63

[brg5658]

I'd say MS64. The lighting looks to be a bit diffused, which can make luster breaks look like bag marks, and also mutes the luster in general.

[JStull]

63/64

[JVC]

MS-63 with good luster.

[coinman_23885]

63

[L1ncolnF4n]

64

[FILTHYHOARD]

I'm with the MS63 crowd

 

[FishyOne]

63+

[Coinbuf]

Yep I'm in agreement its a liner at between 63/64, currently in an old ACG MS64 holder that I've been considering cracking and resubmitting someday. On the pic itself, I'm using a copy stand with two fixed postion 60w halogen floods with a 30w halogen in a flexable clip-on light. I may be at the limit of my camera (old coolpix 950 2mp) more than the lighting itself, or I may need more/higher wattage lights.

[johnny9434]

ill go ms 64 on this one.

[Mary B]

MS-63, hits in front of the face knock it down from a 64

[FILTHYHOARD]

Compare my 1879-o Morgan, which resides in an NGC ms64+ slab

[Coinbuf]

Hard to compaire your 64+ to mine as yours is a point undergraded , a common problem for coins when the price jump is so severe from one grade to the next higher.

 

Bty nice pics do you take your own and if so what camera and lights are you using?

[JVC]

That 64+ is undergraded and not a good coin to compare to yours. I have solid 65 that does not look that good.

[jgrinz]

If the fields were clean this is a hammered 65 , That being said.

The fields are not with misc hits and rubs.

 

64 only cause of it being an "O" mint , any other Mint and its a 63

 

[Veni Vidi Vici-migration]

64 + IMO