| Author |
 Replies: 23 / Views: 1,730 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by dsking
Would someone please explain the reasoning behind the AU-50? How can it be About Uncirculated when it perhaps has been cleaned, shows so many scratches/dents/marks, worn hair above and below the ear, wear at top of breast feathers and does not the toning reduce its grade? If this coin was processed through the Coin Conservation would it then increase it's grade or lower it if the scratches/dents/marks became more pronounced. Should not an About Uncirculated coin show atleast some luster? I don't see consistencies here in grading Morgans. What am I missing folks? I'm trying to learn but, Morgans are difficult and don't seem to always follow "protocols". Help?
I understand your confusion,but when I grade a coin,I grade 90% by wear only, AU50 is the lowest of the AU grades and is defined as "Traces of wear show on hair above eye,ear,edges of cotton leaves and high upper fold of cap.Partial details visible on tops of cotton bolls. Luster gone from cheek.Numerous bag and contact marks" AU coins need not show luster. If this Morgan were to still show traces of luster then it might go AU55 or AU58.If it were to show more wear then it would be in the EF catagory. Cleaning a coin does not change the wear showing.Its the degree of wear that give the coin the grade I give, not so much the luster or if it has been cleaned or not. Hope that helps some Deb.  |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by TLS5933
I understand your confusion,but when I grade a coin,I grade 90% by wear only, AU50 is the lowest of the AU grades and is defined as "Traces of wear show on hair above eye,ear,edges of cotton leaves and high upper fold of cap.Partial details visible on tops of cotton bolls. Luster gone from cheek.Numerous bag and contact marks" AU coins need not show luster. If this Morgan were to still show traces of luster then it might go AU55 or AU58.If it were to show more wear then it would be in the EF catagory.
Cleaning a coin does not change the wear showing.Its the degree of wear that give the coin the grade I give, not so much the luster or if it has been cleaned or not.
Hope that helps some Deb.
In addition to those words of wisdom, it must be understood that 1921 Morgan strikes run the gamut from pretty darn good to utterly lousy, even from San Francisco. It is entirely possible to come across a Mint State 1921-S with very little more detail than the coin pictured. And, as always, grading coins from a picture is an exercise in whimsy and I would not commit myself to any opinion as fact without seeing the coin in-hand. |
|
Valued Member
United States
394 Posts |
Rick, just an observation and not from knowledge, the reverse is beautiful to me,
but the obverse looks like it's had a skin peel done
by some nasty cleaning process. I would call it an AU, but cleaned
and let the interested party worry about it.
Berry
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by SuperDave
quote:
Originally posted by TLS5933
I understand your confusion,but when I grade a coin,I grade 90% by wear only, AU50 is the lowest of the AU grades and is defined as "Traces of wear show on hair above eye,ear,edges of cotton leaves and high upper fold of cap.Partial details visible on tops of cotton bolls. Luster gone from cheek.Numerous bag and contact marks" AU coins need not show luster. If this Morgan were to still show traces of luster then it might go AU55 or AU58.If it were to show more wear then it would be in the EF catagory.
Cleaning a coin does not change the wear showing.Its the degree of wear that give the coin the grade I give, not so much the luster or if it has been cleaned or not.
Hope that helps some Deb.
In addition to those words of wisdom, it must be understood that 1921 Morgan strikes run the gamut from pretty darn good to utterly lousy, even from San Francisco. It is entirely possible to come across a Mint State 1921-S with very little more detail than the coin pictured.
And, as always, grading coins from a picture is an exercise in whimsy and I would not commit myself to any opinion as fact without seeing the coin in-hand.
Very true Dave,Morgans are a different breed of coins. The best advise I would offer to someone interested in Morgans would be to read up on the Morgan dollar to see which coins are known for weak strikes and other abnomalies of this coin."A Guide Book of Morgan silver dollars" by Q.David Bowers is a good start.There are so many variables that you have to get "educated" before delving into the Morgan addiction. Opps,I mean hobby.  Grading from pictures,I always try to stay a grade below What I really feel the coin might be. In hand can change your whole outlook on the coin. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
Heres an example of no luster,weak struck,high graded Morgan. This is graded NGC MS65.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7123 Posts |
Hi Everyone
Thanks for the opinions,, This coin actually has quite a bit of luster left on it, the photo was done under incandescent light and has taken on the gold green color that is normal for that type of lighting,
as for the cleaning I think the obverse has been wiped ,while the reverse has stayed pretty much original,, I placed the grade of the coin as an AU=50 myself and wanted to check it with the rest of the Morgans guys with more experiance.
Rick
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by dsking
Would someone please explain the reasoning behind the AU-50? How can it be About Uncirculated when it perhaps has been cleaned, shows so many scratches/dents/marks, worn hair above and below the ear, wear at top of breast feathers and does not the toning reduce its grade? If this coin was processed through the Coin Conservation would it then increase it's grade or lower it if the scratches/dents/marks became more pronounced. Should not an About Uncirculated coin show atleast some luster? I don't see consistencies here in grading Morgans. What am I missing folks? I'm trying to learn but, Morgans are difficult and don't seem to always follow "protocols". Help?
Hi Deb Join the club !! The morgan series has been by far the most challenging coin that I have been learning to grade,, they seem to have their own grading system ,with settle differences within each mint. Its a challenging series to learn , but I think it is well worth the time I'm spending. Rick |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2365 Posts |
The 1889-O is an MS65? Oh dear, I think I'll keep watching my expert friends on the forum and get the book! I have Morgans that look better than that and I wouldn't even think that they would be in MS Condition. The weak strike O that I posted a couple of weeks ago looked nicer than this one TLS5933 and it had very little toning, not the obvious scratches and so forth. I'll just have to study up. Thanks for posting your coin Metalman. It's been yet another learning experience for us all. Thanks to everyone for their response to my questions and answering Metalman so that I could learn.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
I was thinking ef-45 after I read all your opionions the obverse has been cleaned or wiped their are toned finger prints on the edge and the cheeck shows to much rub for au. I did think that untill I relly looked at it. Nice coin still
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
Checking in late, as usual, but better late than never. This time, I broke my own rule and read the responses since it appears to me that the obverse was cleaned (or the image was taken through plastic) and I was wondering if these points would be expanded upon later. Rick, cleaning aside, with that amount of circulation wear on the obverse and the number of detracting marks on Liberty's face and the obverse field (fingerprint included), the worn hair above Liberty's ear, together with the lack of much/most feathers on the Eagle's breast, I don't think it'll make AU. EF-40 is as high as I'll go with VF-35 more likely, even for a weak strike. I just noticed something: it looks like Liberty has been picking her nose. [:p]  I just compared it with some of my other Morgans and her nasal opening seems comparatively deeper.  As an aside, I really would like to ask the other graders to include reasons for your estimate of a grade. It isn't enough to state "AU-55" or "MS-63"; after all, this isn't a poll, but a discussion group and we need specific points to discuss. Fred |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2365 Posts |
Thanks Morgan Fred. I for one need all the help I can get on grading Morgans. For different reasons perhaps, you are agreeing with my estimation of the grade (I think). On most coins I look at scratches and wear where appropriate to do so and this one just didn't match up. However, the 89-O from TLS5933 doesn't look like an MS65 to me either so I have a lot to learn.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Ok Fred,, so you think the coin is a VF something ,, I can accept that, I may not like it since I beleive the coin maybe a VAM, showing doubling on the stars mostly left side with a die crack from the second star below the E connecting to the E. This is also the coin which has the obvious reverse die cracks through the Dollar lettering. Thanks for the opinions !! Rick |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
Rick and Deb, over the past couple years, I've sorta adopted PCGS's extremely conservative grading standards which are easily the industry's toughest. I don't agree with PCGS's current policies since I believe it's more of a marketing strategy than a true by-the-book grade, viz. PCGS is trying to lower the curve on its Morgan population reports. Nevertheless, I'll make a mental grade, then drop it down one or two grades and come out about par with PCGS. I also go by overall appearance and attractiveness, something that PCGS says is a key factor when they grade a coin. Unfortunately, this is a VERY subjective and almost completely unquantifiable characteristic. I figure if a coin (i.e., Morgan) has a single or couple blemish which attracts the eye away from the rest of the coin (primarily the obverse), then PCGS is gonna downgrade it no matter how well-struck nor unblemished the rest of the coin might be. I don't think it's either right nor fair since coin grading should be much more exacting than PCGS's nebulous and undefinable standards, but that's the way grading life is these days.
Fred
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2365 Posts |
Thank you Fred - understood.
|
|
Forum Mom
United States
5877 Posts |
Fred, you're right. I usually give reasons for my grades but didn't here.
I still see slight breast feather detail. The fact that I can see any detail at all makes me want to put the grade higher than EF since the 1921 breast feathers always look bad (at least in coins I have seen). Coupled with the fact that the only area in the hairlines that appear to show wear is above the ear, I came up with an AU50 grade.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 23 / Views: 1,730 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 07/29/2006 11:18 am
