1921-S Morgan Dollar

[PocketArt]

I was happy to purchase this Morgan as an upgrade. I'd place it at a solid MS65- I will send this one out to our host.

 

A bit of history.

 

Mintage and Distribution: "It seems that the 1921-S dollars were fairly scarce in the 1920's, as when dollars were needed the Treasury Department and the San Francisco Mint paid out other coins. Beginning in a large way in the 1930's, millions were released, many going to Nevada. In 1939 a torrent of these coins entered local commerce in San Francisco. In 1942, many may have been melted under legislation that reduced 50,000,000 coins to bullion. Unlike certain dollars of other dates, bags of 1921-S coins were viewed with disdain, and few were kept. Today, few bulk lots survive in any one place. These coins are seen much less often than are 1921 dollars of the other two mints."

 

Surface Quality: "Most are somewhat shallowly struck on Miss Liberty's hair and on the reverse. "A fully struck piece with good luster is very rare,......The strike varies, but is often unattractive."

 

Bowers, D.Q. (2007). A Guide Book of Morgan Silver Dollars. The official Red Book, pg. 274

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I have always been partial to a technical 64. I search even today for them, and have for many years. If I find one, I buy it and keep it. It is not easy. I have only 2 technical 65s but a few of the 64s I have are more appealing to me, for some reason.

[numisport]

A lovely well struck 21-S for sure and a real keeper if there's no rub.

[CascadeChris]

Can you take pictures stright on with diffused light out of the 2x2? From these pics it looks like a technical 65 or better but things could be hiding and the luster looks like it's been dipped but that can be due to they mylar. Much better pics are needed

[SkyMan]

Looks nice!

[johnny9434]

that one looks pretty good. nice score

[PocketArt]

Can you take pictures stright on with diffused light out of the 2x2? From these pics it looks like a technical 65 or better but things could be hiding and the luster looks like it's been dipped but that can be due to they mylar. Much better pics are needed

 

Thanks John, numisport, Chris, Skyman, and Johnny for the feedback. I took these pics last evening, and it's usually not an opportune time because of the lighting in my office. These two are with natural light during day so hopefully this is a bit more up to par.

 

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Based on the additional images, the coin looks MS63, at best to me. And each set of images makes it appear as if the coin might be polished.

[Nutmeg Coin]

The coin would never straight grade at NGC/PCGS or I/A for that matter. Overdipped, cleaned etc. based on the images. Have been snookered by coins like this before.

[PocketArt]

You could be right Mark, I didn't detect that. There is faint bag marks, or, rub in the field on both sides. I'll try to capture that- would a polished coin obliterate the marks?

 

Thanks,

 

Rich

[CascadeChris]

Yeah. New pics say a technical 63+ but tpg's are lenient on 21's so 64 isn't out of the question on a straight grade if more knicks aren't hiding, however I don't believe it's been polished but rather left in some eZest dip a hair too long changing the luster and giving it that halo effect. You can see it around the wreath bow on the last poc

[PocketArt]

The coin would never straight grade at NGC/PCGS or I/A for that matter. Overdipped, cleaned etc. based on the images. Have been snookered by coins like this before.

 

Yep, I think you, Mark, and Chris are all right. With further scrutiny, I can pick up faint scratches above and below Liberty's eye, and in front of ear indicating polish lines. I also agree with Chris with the halo effect as this coin was probably dipped too. I took the halo effect as just poor luster with this date which is common, and didn't take the time to pick up the scratches per Marks assessment. This was a spur of the moment buy, and admittedly I didn't take time to look at the coin. No more excuses- definitely my bad. I'll keep this one as a study piece so others may learn.

 

The perils of buying raw coins...take your time!

 

Thanks,

 

Rich

 

 

 

[numisport]

Newer image shows coin differently doesn't it. Well struck but looks like light 'handling' or even pocket coin for a day or two.

[CascadeChris]

We have all made mistakes like that pocket art especially early in our coin collecting careers. Now that you know and have a reference piece this type of mistake shouldn't happen too much anymore. I commend you for learning from your mistake and not turning this into a "no it's not" reaction. Consider it paying for your education. That's what I used to do, and honestly still do from time to time. Even the best still make mistakes or can have a brain fart or overlook something minor. You should be able to spot most coins that have been messed with a mile away soon enough.

[MarkFeld]

You could be right Mark, I didn't detect that. There is faint bag marks, or, rub in the field on both sides. I'll try to capture that- would a polished coin obliterate the marks?

 

Thanks,

 

Rich

 

Rich, marks would not typically be obliterated by polishing.

[Nutmeg Coin]

I'd put it in a Meghrig or WR style holder for a while and let it tone out for a while.

[DWLange]

I'd put it in a Mehrihg or WR style holder for a while and let it tone out for a while.

 

This doesn't work with old cardboard, because it's largely neutralized by age. The great toning sometimes seen on coins that were in National or American albums occurred because the coins were placed into the pages when they were new and more reactive.

[Nutmeg Coin]

I would of course agree with the experts but these boards are available that some collectors like: http://meghrigsupplies.com/

[PocketArt]

Okay, thanks Mark, and appreciate insights numisport, Nutmeg Coin, Chris, and DWLange. The coin does look better in hand, and I think that it might have had a bit of aging already to hide some of the polishing and dip. I'll probably just keep "as is" for study purposes. Disappointing with the purchase but a bit wiser.

[CascadeChris]

With that attitude you will go far in this hobby my friend

[coinman1794]

Okay, thanks Mark, and appreciate insights numisport, Nutmeg Coin, Chris, and DWLange. The coin does look better in hand, and I think that it might have had a bit of aging already to hide some of the polishing and dip. I'll probably just keep "as is" for study purposes. Disappointing with the purchase but a bit wiser.

 

The natural light images do not provide the proper perspective to detect dipping; but if the surfaces are etched as a result of dipping, this should be apparent in any light. Sometimes this effect is caused by dip residue, which can sometimes be removed.

 

If you suspect the coin has been improperly dipped, I would recommend neutralizing the surfaces through a professional conservator.

[numisport]

Okay, thanks Mark, and appreciate insights numisport, Nutmeg Coin, Chris, and DWLange. The coin does look better in hand, and I think that it might have had a bit of aging already to hide some of the polishing and dip. I'll probably just keep "as is" for study purposes. Disappointing with the purchase but a bit wiser.

 

The natural light images do not provide the proper perspective to detect dipping; but if the surfaces are etched as a result of dipping, this should be apparent in any light. Sometimes this effect is caused by dip residue, which can sometimes be removed.

 

If you suspect the coin has been improperly dipped, I would recommend neutralizing the surfaces through a professional conservator.

A very good point. Also remember that if you dip silver coins (only lightly),

only use fresh dip that hasn't been used before. That way contaminants wont bond to the surface of your dipped coin. I usually bought 2 jars of Jewel Luster and just poured a small amount at a time into a plastic cup for dipping. Better off not dipping at all but there has been a couple of times I was pleased with the result.