Opinions on this 1902-O Morgan, please?

[pendragon1998]

It appears that tonight is post-your-Morgan night, like the other night was post-your-Walker night.

 

Here's my favorite Morgan in my small collection, a 1902-O. This coin is really pretty in-hand, and is more brilliant than the photo would indicate. Loads of luster. Some marks on it, what I guess are contact marks from being in a bag, but I'm not certain. These photos are pretty representative of this coin. Am I correct in thinking this coin is pretty well-struck for a New Orleans issue? Also, take a look at that horizontal line across the eagle's left wing (viewer's right). Is that a VAM mark? (I know next to nothing about VAM designations) Finally, I don't think this coin's been cleaned, but could it have possibly gotten a well-executed dip? Like I said, it's pretty brilliant, but has a slight toning around the outer rim, which I suspect is album-related. I'm not sure about the coin's previous owners, though, as this is another relic of my collecting childhood.

 

As in my other post, I'd love to hear grades, originality opinions, and any other thoughts you have on this coin.

 

Thanks again for your opinions, and hope you enjoy this one!

 

[EZ_E]

 

According to the image, I like it alot! Great details with a very original look. I think that the reverse would limit it to MS64 but the sharp strike wins it over for me.

[Narmuriel]

OOOOOO, thats a purty one!

[Bruceswar]

Nice stike Minimal hits somewhat muted luster .. MS63 shot MS64

[James_OldeTowne]

In my opinion, which is only worth what you paid for it - this coin has been very lightly cleaned or oiled. The glossy appearance of the devices just doesn't look quite right.

 

James

[John Martinez]

I can't really tell from the pictures. The mark in the field on the reverse to the left of the eagle is where a tell tale mark is on the 1902-O counterfeit morgans. Here's the link

http://coinresource.com/news/news2005/pcgs_declares_counterfeits.htm

[pendragon1998]

Thanks, John. I'm pretty sure this one isn't a counterfeit micro-o, though

[pendragon1998]

In my opinion, which is only worth what you paid for it - this coin has been very lightly cleaned or oiled. The glossy appearance of the devices just doesn't look quite right.

 

James

 

Oh, James, you're just being difficult on people's Morgans today

 

I will say that the coin is much more brilliant overall than it seems in this photo. I was concentrating on getting everything in crisp focus and since the coin was so shiny, I had to compromise on brightness to avoid getting hot spots on the higher portions of the relief. I've gotta respecfully disagree on the cleaned/oiled, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised to learn it was dipped carefully once in the past and allowed to retone in an album before it found its way to me. This is probably an example of my photography hitting its limits.