1921 S Morgan GTG

[Raisethis2]

These pictures were taken using 3 Jansjo's and undiffused light (diffused light makes luster harder to determine) .

 

Whatcha got?

 

[/img]

 

[/img]

[jpcienkus]

Very clean reverse. IMO, the cheek has quite a bit of "noise": forehead, nose, cheek and neck. I'll go MS63

[wdrob]

 

I think MS64

 

 

 

[Hack]

I am going to guess MS 64+

[BipolarBaby]

65

[BillJones]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that PCGS gave this an MS-65 because of the unusually nice luster. All of the 1921 Morgan Dollars often have a dullish satiny luster. This one seems to be unusually bright.

 

As my personal grade I'd go MS-64+. I think that a real MS-65 should be a little nicer.

[$ilverHawk]

Without the hits, MS66. As is, MS65.

 

Carl

[coinman_23885]

64+ shot 65

[KMAG100]

63 - 64

[Danye West]

64

[Raisethis2]

As Bill indicated, the 1921 S Morgans have very poor luster, the fact that this one has excellent luster and an excellent strike should have carried some weight with the graders. The neck bears the brunt of the chatter, the face chatter is very superficial IMO.

 

I was very disappointed with this result.

[/img]

 

[BillJones]

That photo shows this coin in a different light from the one that started this thread. I can understand why it got an MS-63 because of the many small marks, but given the graders' attitudes about luster and higher grades, it could have gotten an MS-64.

 

The trouble is it's a 1921 Morgan silver dollar, which makes it "the most common of the common" in the eyes of many. I don't imagine that the graders spent much time with this one. Sometimes when a coin is very common the grading process becomes "quick and dirty."

[wdrob]

 

That photo shows this coin in a different light from the one that started this thread. I can understand why it got an MS-63 because of the many small marks

 

That is what I was thinking too.

 

 

[Walkerfan]

MS 64 is my wag. Without that linear vertical abrasion down the cheek it would grade higher.