Grade of Morgans? 1 1

[EagleRJO]

Need confirmation of what I am seeing for these two coins.  They appear dipped/cleaned so likely details graded, and I was just trying to figure out the Adjectival grade.  I'm not sure if you would drop it down one additional grade (e,g, from AU to XF) compared to the wear because they were dipped/cleaned which effects luster.

(1) I'm thinking the first one is VF - Details (dipped, with that whitewashed appearance), and not XF because I am seeing wear on the hair and eagle wings, along with scratches.

(2) For the second one I'm thinking XF - Details (cleaned, with dark areas within letters they couldn't get to) because I'm not seeing a lot of wear but there are some scratches in the fields from likely being cleaned.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Edited August 3, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Sandon]

    I grade coin (1) F-VF (F 15) details, "F Details" at a grading service.  There's too much wear on the cotton leaves on the obverse and the wing feathers on the reverse for VF 20.  The coin appears definitely to have been "cleaned". Check out the verbal descriptions of these grades in the ANA Grading Guide (printed), as well as the photos there and on PCGS Photograde.  

   I grade coin (2) in the VF 30-35 range in detail, possibly "cleaned", but not as detrimentally as coin (1).  It's hard to tell from the photos.  The coin has a little too much wear in the cotton leaves and Liberty's hair on the obverse and the eagle's left facing wing and head on the reverse to call full XF.  Check out the references I mention here as well.

   Even after over 50 years of collecting, I still find Morgan dollars difficult to grade due to the complexity of the design and their striking characteristics.  Coin (2) at a reasonable price may be a satisfactory 1903-S for your collection, depending on your budget.  They're out of reach in uncirculated grades for most collectors.  Mine (uncertified) has XF details but has been polished to an unnatural brilliance.  It cost me $154 back in 1995!

 

   

[Coinbuf]

#1)  Fine details, but harshly scrubbed and I would only buy it for melt value, although I'm sure that there are buyers for this for more than I would pay.

#2)  VF details, however once again this looks cleaned.   The pictures are not very good and appear to be deceptive, likely for a reason.   Again, not a coin I would buy.

[VKurtB]

Dipping is less important for well worn coins. Grades are about wear. In Mint State coins, badly done dipping is destructive of the coin’s grade. Nobody should ever consider dipping worn coins, however. It does no good and creates a bad look. 
This is a hobby dripping with nuance. What is appropriate for one coin is actually very “stoopid” for another. There is no “one solution fits all” here. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by VKurtB

[EagleRJO]

On 7/27/2022 at 10:35 PM, VKurtB said:

Dipping is less important for well worn coins. ... There is no “one solution fits all” here. 

I might actually be okay with a lower grade dipped Morgan for some of the more expensive ones as an option, where I really have to go with a lower grade anyway not to break the bank.  That is as long as I was aware it would grade details, and it wasn't overdone with a good appearance still.  I think it was Sandon who mentioned in another thread that he has gotten some good deals with problem coins for some of the more expensive years/marks knowing it would grade lower or details.

[Alex in PA.]

On 7/27/2022 at 8:10 PM, EagleRJO said:

VF - Details (dipped, with that whitewashed appearance),

Just my personal opinion but it's getting harder to find 'nice' silver coins that haven't had a dip.  

[RWB]

There might be some confusion about a "dipped" coin and one that could have been washed.

"Dipping" usually refers to treating the coin with chemicals - usually acids - to convert various silver compounds back into metallic silver. Unless done with great care this leaves a thin white residue visible within fine details and inscriptions. With experience, one can easily spot a dipped coin (pun intended).

Washing with mild nonabrasive soap will remove most surface grime and oils, resulting in a lighter looking coin but without the chemical residue from dipping. The coin will be cleaner and thus seem out of place.

Edited July 28, 2022 by RWB

[RWB]

Coin #1 - Solid Fine

Coin #2 - Better VF (VF-30)

I suspect both coins have been washed, but not chemically "dipped."

[EagleRJO]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:00 AM, Alex in PA. said:

Just my personal opinion but it's getting harder to find 'nice' silver coins that haven't had a dip.  

I'm still finding decent raw coins in the XF to BU range that haven't obviously been dipped/cleaned for some of the more common years/marks for my Morgan collection.  It's when I get to coins like the 1903-S (or 1879-CCs on the other end, which I have also skipped over for now) where there is more of an incentive to try and make coins look better than they are.  These insufficiently_thoughtful_persons are ruining perfectly good coins just to try and make a buck.

[EagleRJO]

On 7/27/2022 at 9:13 PM, Sandon said:

... Check out the verbal descriptions of these grades in the ANA Grading Guide (printed), as well as the photos there and on PCGS Photograde.  

I do use PCGS Photograde as well as the descriptions for specific coins in the RB.  I start with the coin specific descriptions in the RB to get a rough idea of grade and then I go to Photograde to look at specifics within maybe one grade on either side of that.

I did just get a new book that came in the mail (photo attached).  I'm sure @RWB will be happy I got the ANA grading guide, others maybe not so much. 

[VKurtB]

On 7/28/2022 at 9:39 AM, EagleRJO said:

I do use PCGS Photograde as well as the descriptions for specific coins in the RB.  I start with the coin specific descriptions in the RB to get a rough idea of grade and then I go to Photograde to look at specifics within maybe one grade on either side of that.

I did just get a new book that came in the mail (photo attached).  I'm sure @RWB will be happy I got the ANA grading guide, others maybe not so much. 

Great! You have the right book. But READ IT ALL, not just the technical grading criteria. 

[EagleRJO]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:43 AM, VKurtB said:

Great! You have the right book. But READ IT ALL, not just the technical grading criteria. 

I plan to, starting on page 1 like with the Red Book.  

On 7/28/2022 at 10:07 AM, RWB said:

I suspect both coins have been washed, but not chemically "dipped."

So, if cleaning was done by just "washing" the coins would it still come back details only - cleaned from a TPG?

[RWB]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:49 AM, EagleRJO said:

So, if cleaning was done by just "washing" the coins would it still come back details only - cleaned from a TPG?

That is quite possible. The appearance of a coin that has been washed usually differs enough from circulation-appearance, that it will get tagged with "cleaned" as a pejorative. On occasion, chois dipped in pure acetone - which removes only organic material - will get the dreaded "cleaned" designation, too.

If you purchase coins that have already been slabbed by NGC, PCGS or ANACS they will already have been evaluated and meet market acceptance for "cleaning."

[EagleRJO]

On 7/28/2022 at 11:01 AM, RWB said:

... the dreaded "cleaned" designation ...

Oh no, not THAT designation!  

And I love the way a bunch of the eBay coin scammers like to word the description for cleaned/dipped coins they are trying to pass off for not being cleaned, just to cover themselves from complaints/returns, like "Nice Details Coin", "Great Coin Details" or "Excellent XF Details".  So, when someone gets the coin an actually sees how it looks in their hand or when Billy's coin comes back TPG slabbed with "XF Details - Cleaned" they can say "I told you in the listing it was Details". 

Edited July 28, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Alex in PA.]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:18 AM, EagleRJO said:

I'm still finding decent raw coins in the XF to BU range that haven't obviously been dipped/cleaned for some of the more common years/marks for my Morgan collection. 

Now that is what collector's, like me, like to hear.  Not saying a dip is all that bad but a nice original BU goes over good.

[GBrad]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:04 AM, RWB said:

Washing with mild nonabrasive soap will remove most surface grime and oils, resulting in a lighter looking coin but without the chemical residue from dipping. The coin will be cleaner and thus seem out of place.

So @RWB, by no means am I trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, nor start an argument.  I would like to think that by now, you and everyone else should know me better than that. I'm just a peaceful old mountain man, that is, unless someone starts in with the ridiculous and needless comments and starts pulling the r.ace c.......🙄 which really flips my switch (there I go again thinking out-loud...).  

You mentioned 'washing" with a nonabrasive soap.  In my newbie mind, washing a coin implies applying at least some type of pressure to the surface of a coin in order to remove residue and/or oils.  I can't help but to believe this will surely leave microscopic scratches? Now, if a coin is dipped in say acetone for example, which has been time tested and proven from my understanding, and then immediately rinsed in distilled water and every so gently pat to dry it off, is this still going to leave a chemical residue buildup that can be detected?  I know acetone is not the cure-all for removing buildup on a coin, but I do know that acetone will dissolve and remove fingerprint oils in the event the coin's surface was inadvertently touched by ungloved fingers.  I don't use gloves nor do I advocate them, at least for me.  Too much of a potential to drop a coin with cotton gloves in my experience. Just curious as to your post about washing a coin.  Obviously, I believe doing anything at all to a nice MS coin is a no-no, but I believe there are times when a quick acetone dip may very well be necessary in order to "save" a coin from the damage that can be caused by body oils. Am I even correct in my assumptions?  Thanks!   

[EagleRJO]

On 7/27/2022 at 9:13 PM, Sandon said:

Coin (2) at a reasonable price may be a satisfactory 1903-S for your collection, depending on your budget.  They're out of reach in uncirculated grades for most collectors.

I was mostly looking at coin (2) for pricing, but yea I guess the second one could be an option if at a good price.  I was looking for an XF, but I think that one is at least close and doesn't look like it was dipped or harshly cleaned.  I don't plan on sending sub $500 value coins in for grading anyway, so I wouldn't have to worry about it coming back with the dreaded "Details - Cleaned" label.  

And along those lines I could even give it a quick acetone bath and clean it up with some MS70 coin cleaner with a Q-Tip to try and get rid of some of the leftover smutch and brighten it up a bit, so it fits better in my Morgan collection which is mostly AU/BU/MS coins.  For a higher-grade coin, I understand that either an acetone bath or MS70 cleaner, even though not considered harsh chemicals, can remove some of the mint luster even if you are super careful and don't cause any surface damage, and result in a details-cleaned even if it's just an acetone bath.  So, for a circulated VF+ to XF coin that has already lost much of the mint luster I would be less worried about that anyway.

[RWB]

On 7/28/2022 at 2:58 PM, GBrad said:

So @RWB, by no means am I trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, nor start an argument.  I would like to think that by now, you and everyone else should know me better than that. I'm just a peaceful old mountain man, that is, unless someone starts in with the ridiculous and needless comments and starts pulling the r.ace c.......🙄 which really flips my switch (there I go again thinking out-loud...).  

You mentioned 'washing" with a nonabrasive soap.  In my newbie mind, washing a coin implies applying at least some type of pressure to the surface of a coin in order to remove residue and/or oils.  I can't help but to believe this will surely leave microscopic scratches? Now, if a coin is dipped in say acetone for example, which has been time tested and proven from my understanding, and then immediately rinsed in distilled water and every so gently pat to dry it off, is this still going to leave a chemical residue buildup that can be detected?  I know acetone is not the cure-all for removing buildup on a coin, but I do know that acetone will dissolve and remove fingerprint oils in the event the coin's surface was inadvertently touched by ungloved fingers.  I don't use gloves nor do I advocate them, at least for me.  Too much of a potential to drop a coin with cotton gloves in my experience. Just curious as to your post about washing a coin.  Obviously, I believe doing anything at all to a nice MS coin is a no-no, but I believe there are times when a quick acetone dip may very well be necessary in order to "save" a coin from the damage that can be caused by body oils. Am I even correct in my assumptions?  Thanks!   

Dampen your hands, add a little liquid hand soap, work up a lather, add your coin. Lightly handle just like washing your hands, rinse and pat dry (or dry Pat, if she's nearby). All that is happening is removal of surface dirt and oils. If you add any abrasive -- then you'll scratch the coin. This whole thing is NOT done with proofs or other coins with very delicate surfaces....it's occasionally useful for circulated coins with dirt build up.

[VKurtB]

On 7/28/2022 at 3:11 PM, RWB said:

Dampen your hands, add a little liquid hand soap, work up a lather, add your coin. Lightly handle just like washing your hands, rinse and pat dry (or dry Pat, if she's nearby). All that is happening is removal of surface dirt and oils. If you add any abrasive -- then you'll scratch the coin. This whole thing is NOT done with proofs or other coins with very delicate surfaces....it's occasionally useful for circulated coins with dirt build up.

But this is very easy to screw up, too. An extraordinarily light touch is mandatory. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by VKurtB

[EagleRJO]

Thanks for the feedback.  The 1903-S is one of those semi-key dates/mints that gets a little pricy for the higher grades, like around $2k for an AU which is over my max target for each Morgan at about $400 to $500 (I know, I haven't gotten there yet ... ).  So, I am looking for an XF at around $500 (valued at $550 per Coin World and $500 per RB) and probably will have to wait for prices to come down.  In the meantime, I am keeping an eye on prices, where grade really matters for that one and some other coins, and then making a note of grade and price for reference.

I know there can be a fine line between like a higher VF and a lower more common XF, particularly when grading Morgans.  For the VF-35/XF-40 I posted I will offer a little more of what I see, because that one threw me off more as it actually seemed like a solid XF-40, maybe even XF-45 after looking closer and at the ANA Guide.  So, maybe a little more feedback would be helpful.

On 7/27/2022 at 9:13 PM, Sandon said:

   I grade coin (2) in the VF 30-35 range ... The coin has a little too much wear in the cotton leaves and Liberty's hair on the obverse and the eagle's left facing wing and head on the reverse to call full XF.

I rough graded from RB and picked an XF, then went to that in PCGS Photograde (attached), as well as focal areas and grade pic/description for an XF-40 & XF-45 in the ANA Guide.

* Obverse: I don't see much wear of the cotton leaves near cap, hair near ear or the ear itself which actually seems more defined, but some flat spots of cotton leaves expected.  High design points (ANA & Coin News pic) such as hair whisps in front of ear and above back of eye, as well as the eye (bot particularly), ear and cap act appear more defined.  Rim. letters and fields have similar wear.

* Reverse: Some more wear of eagles' neck, and similar wear on upper wings and head (expected).  Some breast feathers remain (expected to be gone) and some expected wear of wing bottom half, leg tops, talons and tailfeathers (above and below arrows) not present.  Less wear of clutched arrows and branch, as well as the wreath below the eagle.

Seems like there was some more detail than expected on obv and rev, which might be a little offset by a few dings near "A" and on edges on rev, as well as a few marks/scratches in fields. Overall, there is expected to be a little mint luster left with an XF-45, but I couldn't tell from either pic.  So, it seemed to me like (2) actually had less wear than expected or what is shown in the PCGS example as well as the ANA focal points, descriptions and photos for an XF.  Okay, fire away.   

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by EagleRJO

[J P M]

I would say the 1885 is a 30 to 35 also. Worth about $30 to $35 LoL

[EagleRJO]

On 7/29/2022 at 7:11 AM, J P Mashoke said:

I would say the 1885 is a 30 to 35 also. Worth about $30 to $35 LoL

Your right, kinda.  I just uploaded the wrong Photograde pic (that was a VF 1885 coin, good eye).  I edited the attachments with the correct XF-40 PCGS Photograde pic (1884 coin).  Comments still the same, as I am seeing less wear on the original coin (2) compared to a PCSG Photograde pic (PCGS Photograde - Morgan Dollars) as well as the ANA pics/details for an XF-40.  Might even be close to an XF-45, which is why I was thinking XF+ more generally.  Okay, now fire away.  

And what do you guys think about price for coin (2) as an option, accepting it may have been lightly cleaned?  Looks like $300 to $400 for a high VF to low XF and $400 to $500 for XF looking at RB, Coin World, and NGC/PCGS guides.  Maybe around $325 to $350 give or take considering it's likely been lightly cleaned?

Edited August 2, 2022 by EagleRJO

[EagleRJO]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:18 AM, EagleRJO said:

I'm still finding decent raw coins in the XF to BU range that haven't obviously been dipped/cleaned ....

On 7/28/2022 at 1:31 PM, Alex in PA. said:

Now that is what collector's, like me, like to hear.  Not saying a dip is all that bad but a nice original BU goes over good.

Agree.  If Gollum collected coins, he would like them "Raw and Wiggly" .  Hands down I prefer raw coins, where a nice orig BU does go over very well.  Sounds like we are talking about a nice cold beer on a warm night. 

On 7/27/2022 at 9:13 PM, Sandon said:

Coin (2) at a reasonable price may be a satisfactory 1903-S for your collection, depending on your budget.  They're out of reach in uncirculated grades for most collectors.  Mine (uncertified) has XF details but has been polished to an unnatural brilliance.  It cost me $154 back in 1995!

I wasn't planning on getting coin (2) but thought for a good price an FX+/- with nice details, and maybe a light cleaning that I could clean up a little more no worries, might be an option that would fit in my complete set.  So, I made a low offer (prob a little better than your 1995 deal inflation adjusted ) and it was accepted.  On to the next ones which are the 1880 (5 of those incl. 2 CC's) and 1903's, plus a few in between if a good price.  Thats going to take a while.

About that, I'm running into another price wall with the 1903-O Morgan, where a BU runs about $700 to $800  which is a no go, so maybe an XF for that one too.  Can scoop a 1903(P) BU grade for about $100, and the two have the same mintage (indication of rarity).  Looks like the 1903-O was almost non-existent until a stash was released by the US, similar to others, but are there still limited O numbers compared to Philly or other more common years, even though mintage numbers are close?  Plus, the NGC Price Guide is pretty strange ... see attached with up/down prices from F to AU.

Edited August 2, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Sandon]

   Mintage figures for Morgan dollars of 1878-1904 are of limited significance.  They were minted in large quantities by the standards of those times largely at the behest of silver mining interests.  While portions of some issues were paid out into circulation during this period, hundreds of millions vanished into U.S. Treasury vaults and were used to back the silver certificates (currency redeemable in silver dollars) that were issued until the early 1960s.  Under the Pittman Act of 1918 some 270 million were withdrawn from the vaults without regard to date and mint and melted down for other domestic coinage or for export.  The melted coins were replaced by 1921 Morgans and by Peace dollars.  The remaining 1878-1904 Morgans and their replacements were paid out at face value until March 1964, when only 3 million or so were left, largely Carson City mint coins which the government retained and sold at a profit during the GSA sales of the 1970s and early '80s.  Most of the many millions of coins released during the 1950s and especially 60s went to coin dealers, collectors and speculators and have remained in uncirculated condition.

   Due to the uneven distribution and random meltings, coins like the 1878-82-S mints and 1883-85-O mints are abundantly common as uncirculated coins today, while the 1883-84-S mints and the 1886-O are scarce and expensive as uncirculated coins notwithstanding comparable mintages. The 1899, with a mintage of only 330,000, mostly exists in uncirculated grades with tens of thousands certified and lists at $552 in MS 64 in CPG, while the 1901, with a mintage of 6,962,000 is scarce or rare in any grade above XF and in MS 64 lists $49,200!  On the other hand, a well-worn 1901 is much easier to find and cheaper to buy than an equivalent 1899.  Similarly, nearly all of the current supply of 1903-O coins comes from the tens or hundreds of thousands of uncirculated pieces discovered when a long-sealed Philadelphia mint vault was opened in November 1962, so a circulated specimen is considerably scarcer than one in the usual uncirculated grades, explaining why you can't save much on a circulated one, assuming that you can find it.  There is a recent fad of assembling "low ball sets" in which some collectors try to find the most worn, though undamaged, coin possible, which explains why a F-VF 1903-O might sell for more than an XF, though most of these collectors want coins in Poor to Fair!  To each his own!

   I'm attaching photos of the MS 64 (PCGS graded) 1903-O dollar that I acquired at the 2000 ANA Convention, which almost assuredly came from the vault hoard.

 

 

 

[EagleRJO]

I knew about the mass melting's, and the years where not that many survived in good condition, or at all, which of course restricts availability, and apparently Morgans are a popular coin with collectors due to the relative availability of older coins and the coin's designs, presentation and heft.  1903-O was the first year I hit with decent mintage (just a rarity indicator), but where the prices for better grade coins were high.  That one's prob going to take a bit because I have been finding prices are generally high now.  And nice 1903-O with the golden toning!  I prefer either the brighter raw silver appearance or a lighter golden toning like on that coin.

On 7/31/2022 at 6:41 PM, Sandon said:

There is a recent fad of assembling "low ball sets" in which some collectors try to find the most worn, though undamaged, coin possible, which explains why a F-VF 1903-O might sell for more than an XF, though most of these collectors want coins in Poor to Fair!  To each his own!

That would make sense as to why I see that shifted pricing sometimes.  I actually think it might be pretty interesting to try putting together a "low ball set".  Start out with perhaps another set that is not your favorite coins where there may have been a bunch of rarer years that you stepped down the grade considerably to complete the set without breaking the bank.  It would definitely be less expensive to put together a set too.  

[EagleRJO]

I have a few more XF Morgans I would like to get some opinions on and to check how I am doing grading these raw coins.  Note, these coins are rarer dates so there is an incentive to overstate the XF grade for the seller.

The first 1895-O Coin (1) I thought might be AU except for the ding at the rim on the rev 12 o'clock, so then maybe just XF (or Details due to the ding?) ... but that one does look cleaned with numerous scratches/scuffs in the fields.

I think the second Coin (2) is an XF.  Some wear on both sides, but pretty clear hair, wheat, ear, feathers, wreath etc.  The last Coin (3) I think is a VF, maybe even a VF+, as there is some wear of the hair and top of the eagles' wings, but not that extensive.  But not an XF as claimed, and there is some discoloration in general which seemed off.

Edited December 15, 2022 by EagleRJO
Coin (1) was a dupe ... swapped out that one

[jimbo27]

Very nice 93o, vf35-xf40 IMO, if this was my coin, I would send it in for grading, just hope it's not cleaned.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/3/2022 at 4:26 PM, jimbo27 said:

... just hope it's not cleaned.

Yea, that's always a concern with these rarer raw Morgans. 

Quote

The first 1985-O Coin (1) I thought might be AU except for the ding at the rim on the rev 12 o'clock, so then just XF ... but that one does look cleaned ...

Then again, those marks look a lot like the ones on this NGC XF-45 slabbed one ,,, Verify NGC Certification | NGC (ngccoin.com)

So, what do you guys think XF-45 (if not Details), XF-40 & VF-25?

Edited August 4, 2022 by EagleRJO

[J P M]

Your numbers look good to me . and coin one 1895 is a pass on it, in my book.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/4/2022 at 5:50 AM, J P Mashoke said:

... coin one 1895 is a pass on it, in my book.

Thanks JP.  Just really tracking for price now with these, unless a really good deal comes up.  But "pass" on Coin one as it has that ding on rev, or "pass" since it looks cleaned?  And would that ding result in "Details" for future reference?  It does appear to be damage not from the mint.

Also, something is just rubbing me the wrong way with the color of Coin (3) almost like it's a silver-plated replica token like the attached.

Edited August 4, 2022 by EagleRJO