1885-P Morgan

[wdrob]

 

 

What would you guess?

 

 

 

 

 

[Raisethis2]

I think that's a great MS 65+ coin. The little hit on the lowest part of the chin is the only thing holding it back.

 

Really nice coin and a decent strike.

[coinman_23885]

If the luster is all there in hand, MS67.

[wdrob]

Yes luster is there. Notice the mark on the reverse under the bow also.

 

I bought some new lamps for taking coin photos. These lamps are Sunlight Floor Lamps and the temperature is Kelvin temperature of 6500K, high-tech 27-watt bulb gives as much light as an ordinary 150-watt bulb.

 

I am trying these out to see how they do. $40.00 a piece and delivered in about 3 days. They stand 5' tall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Yes luster is there. Notice the mark on the reverse under the bow also.

 

 

I didn't see that the first time with my iPad. I can also understand better why the other poster thought MS65+. How bad is that mark in hand?

 

Edited: 66

[KMAG100]

My first impression was MS 65-65+, but after looking longer I'll go 66+. Really like the coin...

[wdrob]

 

It is not all that bad in hand but under a loupe it shows a decent gash. The obverse is very clean though.

 

 

[KMAG100]

I've seen a lot of morgans come in at 65 with a lot more marks than this one on the the face & neck

[thabeast]

I don't grade morgans all the often, but if it were my coin, I'd give it an MS66+. I have my ANA grading book out and I don't see how it grades anything worse than 66.

[coinman_23885]

Are the bases on the lamps adjustable?

[rockhobby]

Not my series but first look says 66 to me.

 

 

 

Doug

[wdrob]

 

Are the bases on the lamps adjustable?

 

I am not entirely certain as to what you mean but I think you are asking if you can adjust the height?

 

If that is the question at hand then the answer is - you can choose to put the lamp together with only one of the extension tubes (they screw together) and that would probably reduce the height to 3' or so. I believe the tubes to be about 18" to 2' in length.

 

Instructions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wdrob]

 

Thanks for all the guesses. Although the coin has that gash on the reverse below the bow it is not an eyesore without a glass and then you have to angle it here and there until you finally are certain what it is.

 

With that being said; NGC saw this coin as a MS63.

 

There are other pictures on the sellers website that are taken under different lighting and you can see that there are a couple extra coin grazes on the cheek (minimal) that not as prominent here, but even over there on those photos it is clear that a MS63 was kind of low.

 

Possibly they net graded because of that on the reverse.

 

I liked the coin for the toning pattern and the clean obverse so I am fine with it sitting in this MS63.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Are the bases on the lamps adjustable?

 

I am not entirely certain as to what you mean but I think you are asking if you can adjust the height?

 

If that is the question at hand then the answer is - you can choose to put the lamp together with only one of the extension tubes (they screw together) and that would probably reduce the height to 3' or so. I believe the tubes to be about 18" to 2' in length.

 

Instructions

 

 

 

 

That's what I meant; thanks!

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Thanks for all the guesses. Although the coin has that gash on the reverse below the bow it is not an eyesore without a glass and then you have to angle it here and there until you finally are certain what it is.

 

With that being said; NGC saw this coin as a MS63.

 

There are other pictures on the sellers website that are taken under different lighting and you can see that there are a couple extra coin grazes on the cheek (minimal) that not as prominent here, but even over there on those photos it is clear that a MS63 was kind of low.

 

Possibly they net graded because of that on the reverse.

 

I liked the coin for the toning pattern and the clean obverse so I am fine with it sitting in this MS63.

 

 

My guess is that the luster may not be strong enough for a high gem grade. That and the gash, of course. MS63 still seems harsh.

[wdrob]

 

Here is a video of the luster. Best I can do. I think the luster is just fine myself.

 

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Here is a video of the luster. Best I can do. I think the luster is just fine myself.

 

 

 

 

 

You're right; the luster appears strong from the video. It also looks like it might have more marks on the obverse...

[wdrob]

Yes in that light they look worse than they do in hand for sure, and as I had stated the sellers picture showed a few more marks than the picture I took. Below is the picture from the seller.

 

Keep in mind that the image I took was straight on flat and not tilted as well as the fact that I was trying out those new "daylight" lights so that is why it might not have been showing all marks but I still don't think there were enough for MS63, however combined with that hit on the reverse maybe it was justified.

 

 

I will have to do more experimenting with those lights before I can settle on them. I definitely didn't buy those lights to make the coins look better than they actually are. I wanted more realistic and better lit photos.

 

The attached photo is a still from that video.

 

[jpcienkus]

Wow Bill. I would have said 66 all the way. I know you have good photo skills, so what is holding this coin back? Let's say it's submitted on a "conservative" day, I think it still goes 65.

 

What are we missing? 66/65 to a 63 is too big a gap IMO, so I must miss something. Plus if it's in a NGC holder, it can only be over graded!!! (sarcasm intended).

[Raisethis2]

The video shows marks in the left field that I couldn't see originally.

 

I agree with the 63. They are pretty big.

[wdrob]

 

Joe, the picture I took is with those new lights I am trying out. They are a 6500k "Daylight" light and I was using two of them. I had the coin flat, the best I can remember, and judging on the inability for me to eliminate from picture the scratches on the slab I think I remember correctly.

 

As far as the video goes, it seems to have exaggerated those marks through pixelation, which is not uncommon of a video uploaded to YouTube that is not uploaded as HD. It was uploaded as 480 and taken with my camera through bellows, I was just trying to demonstrate the level of luster.

 

What I find more interesting is the differences between those 'Daylight" lights I purchased and the ones that the seller used. The link below will open up a photo of the enlarged section of that same picture (the original) used in the composite. Once enlarged you can see that it does show all the little marks, but gee whiz - is it really necessary to provide Macro Photos of a coin at 150 times its natural size before an opinion can be made?

 

Maybe so.

 

I like the daylight look but will have to experiment with these lights a good bit more before I am convinced to use them. That was the first and only coin photo I have taken with them as of now. The lights sure did bring out the vibrancy of the colors without much effort.

 

Interesting nonetheless.

 

 

Enlarged View Of Obverse Face and Field

 

 

 

Sellers Photo

 

[jpcienkus]

Thanks for the explanation. I looked at the YouTube video as well.

 

IMO, I've seen those light surface abrassions on many high grade Morgans. The minor contact marks on the chin and lower jaw are not very bad. The luster you demonstrated in the video is quite strong. I still think it's a strong 65 maybe 66.

 

No matter the actual grade, I really like the coin. Are you going to crack this one out of its holder and put it in your coin cabinet?

[wdrob]

 

No. I have been keeping things in the holder these days. I sometimes buy stuff that I put in that cabinet that I may or may not submit. I had quite a few raw Morgans in that cabinet recently and then one day I just decided to send them all in, even the ones worth only $70.00 - $120.00 after grading.