1896-O comparison Analysis please?

[wdrob]

If you had read the results from one already then maybe you might not be in the best position to participate objectively, but your more than welcome if you have an opinion.

 

I am not arguing or protesting a grade that I recieved since I was not anticipating any other than what I received. However, when trying to determine the approximate grade for a coin you might be contemplating submitting, it seems as though looking at many pictures would tend to give a person an idea of what they look for in any particular coin for a particular grade.

 

Please evaluate these two coins and offer reasoning behind your evaluation so I can learn something here. I must not be seeing something that the graders are seeing or possibly I am not misguided and it is just one of those types of coins that has to be resubmitted 20 times before they will concede the appropriate grade.

 

For this exercise I will set the level of luster for both coins even. No major apparent differences in amount present.

 

___________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________________________

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

[Colorado68]

My first impressions without reading anything else, the top coin an MS61/2 and the bottom MS65.

 

I looked at the wear/strike above the ear and the hairline detail and the cheek, the bottom coin is stronger.

 

On the obverse I focused in on the breast feathers and talons, again, bottom coin has much more detail.

 

While toning on the bottom coin is pleasing, the rim toning on the top coin is less pleasing.

 

Also, the top coin has much more chatter in the fields.

 

I’m really new at this, so my opinions really mean nothing, but thought I’d play along and learn.

 

[MarkFeld]

I'd guess between 58 and 62 on both coins.

 

Often, it's difficult to distinguish a 58 from a 60, 61 or 62, even with an in-hand inspection. Trying to do so based on images makes it that much more of a challenge. If you think that you should be able to tell the difference on a consistent basis, based on pictures, you're being unrealistic.

[wdrob]

 

Colorado - that was a fine analysis on what you thought about the two subject coins and for what reasons you liked one over another or what differences you perceived. That was about all I was asking for. The grade guess was fine as well, however not necessary for me.

 

I think Mark didn't quite understand as you did. Your answer Mark, with all due respect, was about as useless as teats on a boar hog.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Colorado - that was a fine analysis on what you thought about the two subject coins and for what reasons you liked one over another or what differences you perceived. That was about all I was asking for. The grade guess was fine as well, however not necessary for me.

 

I think Mark didn't quite understand as you did. Your answer Mark, with all due respect, was about as useless as teats on a boar hog.

 

I understood, just fine.

 

I have tried to help you a number of times and am tired of your insults. You might find it humorous, but I don't and am done. Enjoy your collecting.

[Danye West]

I agree with Mark, 58-62. Both images show a lot of scratches.

[wdrob]

I understood, just fine.

 

I have tried to help you a number of times and am tired of your insults. You might find it humorous, but I don't and am done. Enjoy your collecting.

 

 

OK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillJones]

I am no fan of the first coin. It probably started out as a dull, indifferently made coin like many of the New Orleans mint dollars from the mid 1890s. After that someone dipped to make it "better" and made it duller in the process. I'd grade it either AU-58 or MS-61 depending on the nature of the dull spots.

 

The second one probably has original surfaces that have not been dipped, but it too is weakly stuck on the eagle's breast feathers. My grade would be MS-63 with a decent shot at MS-64 if the flatness on the breast feathers is strictly due to strike.

 

[wdrob]

Dayne - I take it that you are of the opinion that if one or both were to be graded AU instead of MS it would be due to the amount of scratches on the coin? No rub or anything like that which possibly I am not seeing and others might?

 

I agree with you in that I can see scratches as well. Just still trying to find that one thing or a combination that would cause one of these to be AU and the other MS. Since they both have scratches I will call it even on that similarly to how I considered them even in luster.

 

 

Bill - yes the weakly struck breast feathers is very common with this year and mint mark. I would have played that into the consideration and I do see a difference in the amount of detail in that area, however to me it looks like the bottom one has better feather detail on the breast.

 

Of course I am also basing the comparison on the assumption that all professional graders are very familiar with the common deficiencies of the year and mint mark so I am trying to reject that as a possible reason for one to make the MS level grade and the other to be AU.

 

 

[BillJones]

You can take the breast feather factor into account, but you need to decide if it is due the strike or a rub, and you usually need to see the coin in person to access that.

[wdrob]

You can take the breast feather factor into account, but you need to decide if it is due the strike or a rub, and you usually need to see the coin in person to access that.

 

You mentioned a "rub". I hear that mentioned quite often when others are looking at coins in here and either I have no clue what that is or my eyesight is getting so bad that I just do not see them.

 

In the photo of the bottom coin posted below, the area circled in red - would that possibly be a rub and if so could that possibly be a reason for this coin to be AU?

 

[coinman_23885]

58 - The luster is a mediocre and it looks as if there could be friction on the high points and fields. I still think it is better than an AU55, so I'll call it AU58.

 

58 or MS62 - This coin is much nicer than the first one, but I cannot tell if that is friction on the eagle's feathers on the reverse. If so, that would limit it to AU58. If there is no friction, then I would call it MS62.

[Raisethis2]

The first coin looks to me to be in the AU 55 range. I see wear and color change on the hair just above the ear and then again on the highest point strands above that. There is rub on the cap as well.

 

On the reverse, the eagles breast also demonstrates wear and color change and the bulk of the breast feathers are worn. Whether poor strike or handing, at this point it doesn't matter. Evidence of wear rules. If I'm correct the right side wing tip shows rub also.

 

On coin 2 there is a washed out and re-toned appearance. The luster seems really lacking overall. There's enough evidence of wear in the hair above the ear and on the breast feathers for the coin to get AU'd if I owned it, since you own it I'm guessing UNC, but just barely.

[BillJones]

It could be a rub, or it could be a reflection of envelope storage. This is why you can't pinpoint Mint State grades from photographs because you only have one dimensional views of the item. Even when you see the item live, graders will differ in their opinions. This is the "art" thing.

 

And then when you add in the fact that graders get tired; they get rushed and have other factors that I will not mention, you get different grades with different submissions.

 

[wdrob]

 

Ahhh. OK. So that small little discoloration dot right in the center of the breast could be a reason to drop a coin to AU?

 

What ever happened to the term "album friction" and if that is still used in consideration of grades, how on earth could one distinguish album friction from a very minute rub?

 

But this is teaching me something here. The little details that you folks are mentioning are some of the things that I have overlooked when trying to determine if the coin is clearly a MS coin or if it is in fact a slider that is most often going to slide down rather than up on such a scarce coin.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

It could be a rub, or it could be a reflection of envelope storage. This is why you can't pinpoint Mint State grades from photographs because you only have one dimensional views of the item. Even when you see the item live, graders will differ in their opinions. This is the "art" thing.

 

And then when you add in the fact that graders get tired; they rushed and have other factors that I will not mention, you get different grades with different submissions.

 

+1

[wdrob]

There were a couple extra posts there that I just read.

 

The bottom coin is mine and it is indeed a AU58. It was an AU58 when I bought it and as I was stating in the beginning I am not doubting the grade since NGC had two shots (that I know of) at this coin. I sent it in for the chance of an upgrade, but mainly to get it into a newer holder.

 

I will have to take into account the points that have been made here when trying to determine the possibility of an undergraded coin in the future. Especially when I had that bottom coin out of the holder and could see it just as a grader would see it.

 

Thank you all for identifying some areas that I can now look at more closely and try to apply to future purchases.

 

By the way; here are the two coins I sent in, both 1896-O and one I knew was AU and figured it was so ugly they would look at the second one and see a beautiful MS coin.

 

Did not work that way I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Ahhh. OK. So that small little discoloration dot right in the center of the breast could be a reason to drop a coin to AU?

 

Yes, if it is wear, it would drop the grade. For better or worse, wear is considered more detrimental than bag marks.

 

What ever happened to the term "album friction" and if that is still used in consideration of grades, how on earth could one distinguish album friction from a very minute rub?

 

IMHO, it is all a marketing gimmick, and I can't think of a principled way to distinguish between the two. I suppose with album friction, you might see light slide marks occasionally. By the same token, I don't think very much of so called cabinet friction which has been used to bump up slider AU Capped Bust coinage into mint state holders.

 

On another note, perhaps some of this is the result of market grading. Rather than changing the grading scale (in my opinion) or twisting the standards established, what should change is the mind set of collectors. A low grade mint state coin isn't always a more attractive coin than a slider AU. In many cases, I would rather have the latter than a heavily bagged marked coin. To this end, I don't always agree with the pricing disparities for many AU to MS62 coins, although in many series, such as Capped Bust Half Dollars, many of the nicer sliders in AU58 holders are getting the attention that they deserve.

[wdrob]

 

I have come to feel that very same way about a low MS vs a nice looking AU58 and now I am trying to only alert and get excited when it is a coin that I like, regardless of the grade, so long as the wife doesn't find out.

 

I was happy with the bottom coin when I bought it from a forum member here and am still happy with it. Maybe a little happier now that it is in a new scratch free holder.

 

Also I need to say what grade the very first coin in this thread recieved. That coin is in a MS61 PCGS holder with an asking price of $2,600.00 or so. I bet he/her gets it too simply because it is in a PCGS holder and a MS61 on the label.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Also I need to say what grade the very first coin in this thread recieved. That coin is in a MS61 PCGS holder with an asking price of $2,600.00 or so. I bet he/her gets it too simply because it is in a PCGS holder and a MS61 on the label.

 

If the images are accurate, I hate the top coin. In fairness, I don't buy many coins in the MS/PF60-62 range.

[BillJones]

In this set of photos, the first coin looks like an AU-50 or maybe an AU-53. The eye appeal is off and all the coin has going for it is a fair amount of luster left after a certain amount of wear.

 

The second coin is the kind of piece that collectors who don't want to spend Mint State money, would LOVE to put in their sets. It has eye appeal and what wear there is does not amount to much.

 

Getting coins like this in Mint State holders is a bear. The reason is that, using Coin Facts (PCGS) pricing numbers, the retail price goes from $575 in AU-58 to $2,100 in MS-61 and $3,000 in MS-62. The graders know this, and for that reason they are very reluctant to give "honor grades" like MS-63 and 64 to coins like this. Why? The MS-63 price is $9,000 and the MS-64 price is $35.000. They don't want to have to "pay up" for a missed over grade.

 

By the way, if you subscribe to "Coin Facts" you will note that the breat feathers on a couple of their MS-64 graded coins they show are not that great, at least not for $35,000. A couple of them are no better or perhaps not as good as your AU-58 coin.

 

BTY the grades I gave you the first, which were MS-63 or 64, were based upon the coin without looking at the prices. I'm not a Morgan Dollar collector, and I don't keep all these prices in my head. If I had bothered to look up the prices, I would have realized some of the politics that goes into grading these coins and would have dropped the grades accordingly. Still I think that if were not for the big price jump you would have gotten an MS-62 for your AU-58.

[coinman_23885]

By the way, if you subscribe to "Coin Facts" you will note that the breat feathers on a couple of their MS-64 graded coins they show are not that great, at least not for $35,000. A couple of them are no better or perhaps not as good as your AU-58 coin.

 

But is that a consideration of strike (which is an issue for many New Orleans minted Morgan Dollars) or rub? The OP's coin looks like rub.

[BillJones]

By the way, if you subscribe to "Coin Facts" you will note that the breat feathers on a couple of their MS-64 graded coins they show are not that great, at least not for $35,000. A couple of them are no better or perhaps not as good as your AU-58 coin.

 

But is that a consideration of strike (which is an issue for many New Orleans minted Morgan Dollars) or rub? The OP's coin looks like rub.

 

If you look at least one, maybe two of the Coin Facts pieces, rub or strike is debatable. Since PCGS graded it, they must have thought it was strike.

 

You will also note thate these MS-64 graded coins have so-so luster compared to many other date and mint mark combinations of Morgan Dollars. The bottom line is most 1896-O dollars are not very attractive. The AU-58 looks nice, so for me it would be a keeper if I was a Morgan Dollar collector. Now if I were a registry points at all costs person, I'd want an upgrade.

[wdrob]

Nope. Don't care about the registry points. Just thought the coin might get the grade I felt it should have received but I knew the price jump was high and chances were slim (I wasn't aware it was that high from AU58 to MS61). Bottom line, I thought the coin was attractive so I bought it. It might not be to some collectors since taste in coins vary so widely, but that is all ok with me.