Post some of your Morgan Dollars 2 2

[powermad5000]

[rrantique]

[rrantique]

[rrantique]

[Sandon]

    As you may recall, I had planned to submit some of my better date (not better grade) Morgan dollars purchased years ago to NGC. I ended up submitting ten coins, nine of which received grades at or close to my expectations. The tenth, the prooflike 1879-O whose photos I posted was returned unencapsulated as having an "altered surface". I have edited my previous posts for that and the other coins from the group that I submitted (1885-CC, 1889-CC and 1899) to show the grades awarded by NGC.

   I had submitted this 1890-CC, which is attractive and minimally bagmarked but has light, wispy hairlines throughout the fields on both sides, thinking that it was a distinct possibility that it would receive an "Uncirculated Details, Cleaned" designation but also hoped that it would receive a low mint state "straight grade".  NGC graded it MS 61.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Sandon

[Sandon]

    I bought this much better date 1893-CC from Stacks Bowers back in 2012 as part of a three-coin uncertified lot in which it was graded "F 15". I thought it had a chance of a VF grade. NGC, somewhat generously in my opinion, graded it VF 30. 

More to come.

[rrantique]

[Sandon]

     I purchased this 1891-O Morgan dollar uncertified from a June 2000 Goldberg auction, where it was graded MS 63 and noted as having an unusually good strike for an 1891-O, which is notorious for most surviving pieces being poorly struck. This coin is remarkable for having nearly full hair details over Liberty's ear and clear feathers on the eagle's breast.  Last month NGC awarded it only an MS 61 grade, likely due to scratches on Liberty's face and a somewhat "dipped" appearance, but I still regard it as a premium piece due to its strike.

   Interesting "Tidbit": Redeemed and melted Trade dollars provided the source of silver from which many 1891-O Morgan dollars were coined, but it is impossible to determine whether the metal in any particular coin came from that source.

 

[rrantique]

[Sandon]

I purchased this semi-key date 1895-O Morgan dollar uncertified at a local coin auction in October 2000 as Extremely Fine. Last month NGC awarded it an equivalent grade of XF 40.

 

[rrantique]

[Sandon]

    The remaining two better date Morgan dollars in my recent submission to NGC were designated "cleaned", but this was not entirely unexpected. This 1901-S came uncertified from a June 2001 local coin auction. I regarded it as low mint state, about MS 61, with a slide mark on Liberty's cheek.  NGC graded it Uncirculated Details, Cleaned. The coin isn't extensively hairlined but has some hairlines on Liberty's face and a somewhat "washed out" appearance, probably from being dipped. The NGC staff apparently thought the color wasn't natural, but I know I've seen "S" mint Morgan dollars from the 1900-02 era with this look that were numerically graded.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Sandon

[Sandon]

 

      Purchased uncertified as Extremely Fine at a March 2002 coin show, this semi-key date 1879-CC has a slightly glossy darkish color and light hairlining in the fields that NGC not unexpectedly interpreted as evidence of "cleaning" when I submitted it for certification last month. It also has some rim damage. However, now graded XF Details, Cleaned, it remains in my opinion a decent circulated example of this now rather expensive issue.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/18/2023 at 10:42 PM, Sandon said:

Purchased uncertified as Extremely Fine at a March 2002 coin show, this semi-key date 1879-CC has a slightly glossy darkish color and light hairlining in the fields that NGC not unexpectedly interpreted as evidence of "cleaning" when I submitted it for certification last month. It also has some rim damage. However, now graded XF Details, Cleaned, it remains in my opinion a decent circulated example of this now rather expensive issue.

How exactly can they tell if a coin was "cleaned" ?  Do even modern cleaning cloths -- including super-fine microfibers and stuff like that -- necessarily show proof of cleaning compared to stuff 50 or 100 years ago ?

Also, what about if a coin just slid in a velvet pouch, could that come off as cleaning ?

I don't doubt that many coins were cleaned years or decades ago, but it's also possible they have light circulation wear or other contact with pouches (this was before TPGs for many coins) or whatever that held them.

[rrantique]

Here are a  couple 1904 O;s  Both graded MS64 with a very different look

 

[rrantique]

[rrantique]

[rrantique]

[rrantique]

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/14/2023 at 7:25 PM, Sandon said:

I purchased this 1891-O Morgan dollar uncertified from a June 2000 Goldberg auction, where it was graded MS 63 and noted as having an unusually good strike for an 1891-O, which is notorious for most surviving pieces being poorly struck. This coin is remarkable for having nearly full hair details over Liberty's ear and clear feathers on the eagle's breast. 

A discussion on another forum talked about how one looks for "wear" or "friction" on high points.  It was also noted that a "poor strike" can be when the die isn't filled with metal (for whatever reason, I don't believe any were given though maybe it's covered in FMTM) and that the metal doesn't reach/fill the high points on the coin.

The washed-out look can then look like it is discolored relative to what the rest of the coin looks like.  Or something like that; I think that's how the discussion went. 

Do you believe this has elements of truth to it, even if not 100% explanatory about why some legitimately MS coins might appear AUish ?  And do you think this applies to Morgans ?

I do know that in an EXTREME example, if the striking force doesn't import enough tonnage and/or if you don't strike the coin enough times, the coin will look mushy and the details look mishapen.  That's an extreme example and wouldn't pass quality control but I just cited it as an example.