Three Morgans to GTG on ... 1880-P | 1900-P | 1896-O

[wdrob]

 

Well they are definitely not high grade like the 1881-S SWNGC had posted but I was curious what others might think on grades.

 

My consideration on these seems to be a bit lower in grade than others might have opined. Thought I might get a general feel to see if I am close.

 

If you are not familiar with the 1896-O and the weak strike, excessive bag marks and all around general mushy appearance of this branch mint year then the following excerpt might help in evaluation.

 

In The Morgan and Peace Dollar Textbook, Wayne Miller wrote: "No other Morgan dollar is as consistently deficient in luster, strike, and degree of surface abrasions as the 1896-O. A fully struck piece is rare, an 1896-O with minimum bagmarks is even more unusual. In the author's opinion, the 1896-O is the rarest of all Morgan dollars in truly Gem condition."

 

By the way -- they all have signs of luster equal to that which one would expect on a AU58 or higher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

 

[SWNGC]

Toned pics are soooo tough.

 

1 Au58 or ms63. (really leaning to 58, if that's not rub, 63ish)

2 ms 64

3 Au55 tough year for ms

[jpcienkus]

I like them Bill:

 

1880: MS64

1900: MS65

1896: AU55

[Coindude]

1. 58, there appears to be rub on the nose, hair and several other high spots. Very pleasing toning.

2. Nicer peripheral toning, I'm guessing 64.

3. 53

[AHFreak]

AU58 on the 1880

 

To me, unless I am just seeing it incorrectly, I say AU55 on the 1900

 

Im not sure about the 96-O, I understand the general consensus being that the date/grade is poorly struck/mushy/lackluster/etc.. but from what im seeing, it looks polished or maybe over-dipped. Something along those lines. I am curious to find out what is really going on with that coin.

 

[Raisethis2]

Ms 63

 

Ms 64

 

AU 55

[wdrob]

 

Here is an alternate photo of that 1896-O which was taken using a higher f/stop to allow the colors of what little bit of toning there is to show through better. Also I think it better represents the detail, for what it's worth. Not to be misconstrued as my disagreeing with any of the opinions thus far.

 

 

 

 

 

[wdrob]

 

Well as I stated in the initial post I seem to have a lower opinion on grade(s) on at least one or possibly two of those presented. Having the in hand access might be the reason for that.

 

1880-P >>>> I am of the opinion that this one is a MS63. Although there are some surface issues on the high points, I believe it would be better considered cabinet friction than a rub.

 

1900-P >>>> This one accounts for the most difficult to accurately grade for me. Although it has some very nice clean fields and very few miniscule marks, I think it would be a AU58 depending on how common UNC examples have a weak center strike for that year and mint.

 

1896-O >>>> The coin is ugly. Not so terribly ugly that it is worthless but I would love to have a 1896-O example that resembles the toning and clean fields of that 1900-P. I still feel that it is a AU58 based upon the amount of cartwheel luster that it has as well as details in some key areas that might otherwise deserve a low UNC grade. I have noticed that there seems to be so much more of a lack of consistency in grading this particular Year and MM and I believe that is based upon the lack of time spent grading per coin as well as unfamiliarity with the issue.

 

Sorry that I don't actually have certified grades to report. Just thought it would be interesting to see the opinions on these.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

[wdrob]

 

As mentioned in the other thread, I decided to send in some coins regardless of how little they may be worth and once again I must say you guys are very good graders.

 

1880-P is now in a MS63 holder. That was the only one I got right.

 

1900-P is now in a MS65+ holder.

 

1896-O is now in a AU55 holder.

 

 

I am still very confused as to how they could place that 1900-P into an MS65+ holder. It is a pretty coin and apparently I thought it was an AU58, but some of you saw it as a MS64 or MS65. So you folks are able to either overlook the flatness of the eagle's breast and other areas of strike (along with the graders at NGC) but for some reason I was hypercritical over the strike.

 

Yet I sent in 2 1896-O Morgans, which are well known for the poor strike, and one (not the one above) when compared to hundreds and hundreds of other examples always stood out as being far superior to many of the MS62 - MS63 graded pieces, is put right back into an AU58 holder.

 

I will have to figure out where my approach is flawed on these coins that often have poor strike.

 

thanks to all that played along.