My 97-O Morgan Just Came Back From PCGS

The O mint coins are notorious for weak strike characteristics, I believe this one is mint state with weakness/flatness on many of the details.

MS-64 would be my guess

I'm guessing it came back MS60 because it's a 97-O.

I wish you had phrased that a little more politely; if Gazot chooses to ignore you from here on in I won't blame him.

On to the coin. The very first thing I look at on a New Orleans Morgan is the eagle's talons. Given (as Metalman said) these are notorious for weak strikes, one has to somewhat discount the visible evidence on the obverse until one uses reverse details to conclude overall strike quality. The talons don't tell the whole story; more like, their condition could say something conclusive. In this case, they do, looking at the 4th image from the top. They are rounded; the outer toes show detail; this is a pretty strongly-struck reverse. Therefore, if I see other details on the reverse that make me think "wear," it's probably wear.

Breast details are decent. Neck feathers are strong; just the slightest bit of weakness behind the eye. No noticeable wear on the top edges of the wings. If this coin has circulated, it wasn't for very long. With that in mind, I don't care what the obverse tells me. Coins circulate equally on both faces. If the obverse is AU50, so is the reverse but this reverse is certainly not AU50.

You grade most Morgans (most coins, in fact) by starting with the obverse. It's just the habit we're in. You grade New Orleans Morgans reverse-first.

The obverse scratches inboard of E dot P on the obverse, and between E_D on the reverse, don't happen in the bag. It's conceivable they could happen postmint without the coin seeing circulation, but that's a remote eventuality in my mind. So, regardless of what PCGS called it, I call this one AU58. The thoughts presented here regarding cleaning are likely based on the "haze" best visible around the eagle's head in the 4th image; that's not a photographic artifact and without the coin in-hand I see that as sufficient evidence to be concerned, but insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

Now, for the fun part:

The date looks to be pretty "near," and the mint mark high, placed left of normal and tilted right. This doesn't match anything listed at VAMworld, and if you look at all the known VAMs at once, the available information is near-conclusive. I'm not saying this is a new die pair; there's plenty of room for slight photographic distortion and the facts presented over there are not complete. But it's close, and bears further thought.

Maybe I was overly harsh, but I stand by what I said. Poor lighting, taking shots on an angle, that is not how you photograph a coin to be graded.

If he wants to ignore me, that's fine by me. A lot of people out there can't handle my bluntness, and I honestly don't care. I'm a straight shooter, I don't treat adults like little kids, and I tell things how they are.

Gazot, go to Ikea, buy three of the lights linked below, diffuse the light by using paper towels and scotch tape, then put your camera into macro mode, and do some shooting. Night and day difference, even with a crap camera (and I have no clue what type of camera you're using).

Here's the lights;
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/p...ts/20169658/

Then save your money to buy a proper DSLR, copy stand and macro lens and you're on your way to world-class photos.

It came back MS-62 which in my opinion is one or two grades generous. I believe the scratches make this a less than an MS-62 but maybe I am being harsh. It does steal from the eye appeal. There is no mention of cleaning although I too have my doubts and believe it may have been altered.

As far as my photographs they are ten times better then when I first got here (a whole month ago) and I didnt see this listed as a photography web site. If there so terrible I am wondering how all these wonderful observations were possible. I came here to share mine and my fathers collection not for a blue ribbon.

Thanks for the thought on the VAM possibility....the O is definitely tilted.

In hand it has a nice lustre and the strike is above average. The filed other than the nasty Al Capone scare bag mark is intact.In hand the biggest detriment on this coin are the scratches between E & D. Obviously done by human hand.

Still, it is a key date in Mint State. I'd rather have that than a nice lamp and a blue ribbon.

I personally think you got ripped on the grade, Just look at the PCGS guide says as to what a 64 should be and tell me what it is on your coin that makes it less?

This is what bothers me the most about PCGS there own guide makes this coin a 64 and yet it returns as a 62.

Super Dave......Thanks for exactly the kind of informative answer I come here for. I learned a lot from your response.

The fact that I called it circulated, while PCGS chose otherwise, doesn't prove anything. I based my opinion solely on the fact that the marks I saw didn't seem likely to me without some minimal circulation, even though I saw no wear on the coin. That, by the way, is my definition of "AU58," a grade I believe to be thrown about with entirely too much abandon.

PCGS thought those marks compatible with their definition of a Mint State coin, although apparently detracting from the grade it would otherwise have received.

Takeaway? Yup, grading is subjective.