1880-O Morgan. Grade? (Practice)

Its rather tough grading by pictures, some AU grade coins looks better than MS coins, in this case maybe lacking luster?

I saw this one as AU58 but again for PCGS knock it down a notch. have no reason why, it just happens. this coin is not AU55 there is just way too much detail. this coin probably saw a couple days in circulation just enough to pick up some hairlines and lose some luster on the high points

PCGS photos are very hard to grade by that said it looks like the missed this one . If there is wear it would be at AU-58 if you think it's uncirculated I'd send it in to NGC or Anacs since at MS63 they start going up in value

My thoughts on AU designations are probably wrong per ANA training/TPG standards, technically speaking, but I would think that in reality, almost every coin out there, save the sealed from mint type, has been in some kind of circulation. How can they not be? Having said that, it is why they have TEN levels of Mint State. Yes? If any circulation shows, which you can find on about any coin, then all of them would be AUXX with any signs of circulation nullifying an MS designation.

What keeps a coin in the TEN levels of MS might be a better way to ask it.

AUXX to me is a circulated coin that reaches a certain level of wear, that exceeds any chance of achieving one of the Ten Mint State conditions. MS-60 has been compromised. Hence...AUXX. Seems logical to me. What I have to get better at is looking at a coin like this one I submitted, and determine how it qualifies for one of the TEN levels of any Mint State, to have a more acceptable coin in my arsenal. I just looked at PCGS Photograde for AU55 Morgan. What did I do? . None of this means an AUXX coin is not worthy. Just personal preference. Don't want hate mail. Lol.

So, even though as some have noted, "I see some evidence of circulation...it's an AUXX", I say Ok. But this coin from a known substandard Mint (New Orleans), I would think would start from a grading baseline with that taken into consideration. Add some circulation evidence. But still in a 'Mint State" condition. One of the ten levels. So to me, this is a Mint State coin with some wear, evidence of circulation. Again.....that's why we have TEN levels of Mint State. Otherwise, it would be ONE Mint State condition. No levels. "Uhhh, there's a mark. A hairline. A bit of a rub mark, etc.. Duhhhh, Larry, you see that? Here, look in my 1000X microscope. A mark! Yup. No MS. It's an AUXX".

Maybe that is a naive assessment, though I understand TPG's take many things into consideration, and I accept that, I don't have to like it. No one does. We play by the rules as set though. But to ask questions and try to understand the "Why" of a head-scratching grade, is normal. Completely fair. It does not change my view that I don't see what the professionals see with decades of experience. I get that. And still, accept it. Just frustrating as not being experienced, to catch up to the "Why". And let's admit it...even experienced folks/experts have disagreements on grading. So, all fair questions/statements as I see above in this chain, and many others.

Just as an example of the "WHY" of a grade, this truly uncirculated Kennedy (was in Cello to PCGS very PL and excellent contrast), got what I think was a low grade. To boot, which I was confident in getting, no CAM designation. Though any comparative coins (using a baseline of other TRUEVIEW graded Kennedy's), with less frostiness, did get it. I know comparisons to pictures are no longer, to me anyway, a good measure. TPG's see what we don't. Pictures are deceptive. But it is a fair question with simple visuals, of a head-scratcher for this coin's SP65, no CAM grade (maybe "OF AMERICA"'s slight less frostiness caused a no CAM...don't know). And I just got all Slabs back today, less Error coins, and looked at this coin....what did I do? . It's clearly a CAM, and a sweet one. Better than TRUEVIEW depiction. However, I did check my wallet, and alas, I am not a Card-Carrying TPG member. . For those who are tired of explaining it to me, and others like me, chillax. No response is necessary. I accept what has been explained to me already. Not complaining. Just observations...thinking out loud. And this Kennedy is just an example to support my whining. I reserve the right to whine. .

And you reserve the right to ignore me.

Coinfrog, you are usually right. Be easier on yourself.

Alright, it's breakdown time!




Yeah, I'd agree with that. Though technically if I crack a BU roll, and buy something from a friend and toss his a quarter from the roll technically it has been circulated. However, the reason I'm not a fan on the AU tag is one I'll elaborate on shortly.




The ten levels of mint state were created to originally grade morgan and Peace dollars actually, but were quickly applied to all US coins. Essentially it worked like this originally. You had MS60, the worst possible a coin can be without any signs of wear or significant mishandling. MS65 a coin free of detracting marks with no signs of wear or mishandling. MS70, a perfect coin. The reason I don't like AU is that it stands for about uncicrculated. I would much prefer the term AM (about mint). I feel this describes the grade MUCH better. When you have to explain the difference between an AU58 and MS60 and you try to use the terms "mishandled unc" or such it just gets too confusing for people who don't have a few years grading experience under their belt. AM describes it better IMO. It is in about mint condition, however shows signs of wear and mishandling to a degree reflective of its numerical grade. The way I always explain it is that a coin can be circulated and still be mint state, but a coin with wear cannot be MS. The dividing line occurs when their is wear on the devices. I don't care if the coin has changed pockets a few times, as long as it hasn't worn, in my eyes, and in technical terms, it's still UNC (MS). The other thing is mishandling, especially on gold will quickly drop a coin from MS to AU. Simply put if you never circulated a coin but left it in your pocket for a few weeks when you went out and about, very quickly it'd be AU. Simply because the mishandling caused friction which in turn causes wear.




Not sure what you were trying to say (maybe cause it's 4AM) but, I think what you're saying is that in your opinion an AU coin is a coin with minimal amounts of wear, right? Your wording was a bit confusing.




Alright, so I'm gonna break this into a few parts to address this better.




So. Ok. The fact that the strikes are substandard is taken into consideration, and you can have some disgusting, atrocious strikes and still have a MS coin. That's all taken into consideration, and well seasoned graders know the difference between strike weakness and wear. The part where it gets tricky is your usage of "circulation evidence" as it can mean things to different people. Generally circulation evidence is a combination of luster impairment and wear. For example, if I'm quite suspicious that a coin may be AU but has strike weakness and blistering luster, I'm gonna bet that it's MS. That is because by definition an MS coin can have luster impairment, but no wear. An AU coin can have luster impairment and wear. So. To recap. It is taken into consideration, but wear isn't excusable, and circulation evidence is more or less equal to someone saying wear.




We're getting to the bottom of your confusion! A MS coin can NEVER have wear as it would be a contradiction to it's own name. Logic states a worn item isn't in its state, that rule follows to coins as well. To break down the 10 levels of MS MS that's gonna be a challenge, but here goes the theory.

Coins, in this case Morgan dollars are made of hard metal, in this case 90%, 10% copper. In order to make the blanks strikeable you need to make them slightly malleable. Once you've done so (I'm skipping over some stuff, but just generally understand you make them malleable) they are struck. The next part needs some understanding of thermodynamics, but when coins are struck it's under immense pressure which creates a ton of heat. Because of that coins fresh of the press are actually quite prone to damage because of how soft their surfaces are and because they can be easily blemished while malleable. Most bag marks and nicks and such you see on Morgan dollars are from when the surfaces were so soft.

Now why is that all important? We use the 10 levels of MS to describe how a coin that has not experienced any wear, any circulation, nothing a Mint State coin has faired from striking to bagging. The each of the MS grades describes the number and severity of any flaws gained during this period. Because when we do this, we are describing a MS coin, no wear is allowable. So basically whenever you go up a grade you go down X amount of marks until you hit MS70 (perfect) or go down and hit MS60 (worst possible without having any wear or anything that would detail it). The reason we need 10 is to describe the different number and severity of marks.




Change your settings to that I can send you an email thru CCF and I'll send you the link to a 2hr long lecture on grading hosted by the ANA earlier this week.

As for the Kennedy I just think they dropped the ball, PCGS isn't great for Moderns, that's more NGC's speed. Regardless it looks like a SP66CAM to me.

Well that's all from me. It is now 4:30am and I'm going to bed.

No way this is a Mint State coin. No real luster, it has a washed out look, like the obverse has been thumb rubbed. The obv and rev fields have a scuffed-up look to them indicating brief circulation. Nice AU probably 55.