1897 Morgan

any guesses on the value of this one...I will post some pics, It looks shiny in my hand, like I can reflect light, is that what you are asking? Ballpark selling price on this one. The year and mintage jump a lot from the au grade, so I just want a idea, It will be in my collection for a long time, but a good starting point reference would be great.
thanks.

Ok, so I am inspecting this coin. And I cannot see any signs of cleaning. I finally decided to "learn" what cartwheel luster is, and this coin displays it beautifully. I am now on the fence if I should send this one in. If it makes ms grade, it could be worth a bit of money. Any thoughts? I will also take another scan tonight, and try to upload a video onto YouTube to see if you can see "cartwheel" luster. Hey, thanks again everyone for all tour help, and patience. I am just entering into this world of coins..

I strongly suspect PCGS will body bag your coin. I looked again tonight and I am still of the opinion it would grade at AU 55 (details).

The eagles right wing clearly shows signs of wear..Its an AU coin...Yes O mint marks are known to be weakly struck, but the eagles right leg also shows some definition, not totally flat which is consistent of a flat strike...I think AU 55 would be a great grade if you can get it...NOT 58...

Very hard to judge from scans would be better to have some photos

Metalman, I'm going to use your own coin against you here.

As background: Metalman owns the "poster child" for weak strikes, an 1888-O Morgan so weak it makes one think that the obverse and reverse dies weren't even in the same room when it was struck. We've discussed this coin on the forum more than once. Metalman is positive it's Mint State, and so am I. I've held his coin in my own hands, and I took the images I'll post here. It's a Mint State coin.

As such, it's a great research tool for helping decide if your own coin is weakly-struck or worn. So, let's do a comparison with Kempire's coin, shall we?





Note the hair/ear junction on the 1888. It, um, ain't there any more, nor is any hair detail north of that. This is what a weak strike looks like. Now, compare these three areas between the two coins: The hair directly between the eye and "U" in "PLURIBUS;" the hair "northwest" of the first three right stars; and the larger of the two leaves above the cotton bolls. In each case, even factoring in the detail difference between my photos and the scans Kempire posted, his coin shows less detail than Metalman's.

Now, let's go to the reverse.





Metalman's coin is effectively obliterated from the top of the breast to the bottom of the arrow fletches. Legs, talons, arrow shafts, fletches? Nope, sorry.

Look at the very beginning of the neck, right behind the beak. Actually, look at the whole neck. Compare the two largest leaves at the bottom of the wreath, pointing at the "N" and the "A." Look at the beginning top edges of the wings, below the level of the beak.

In each case, Metalman's historically-weak coin shows at least as much or more detail than Kempire's.

The 1897-O is no better than AU55.

Wow I thought my 1889 weak strike was bad but it OWNS MetalMan's coin.

Dave/Metalman...Thanks for that great example coin, it shows the problem with many of the 1897-O's. I've seen it before with this date many times and with the posters example it looked like another one. My eyes see a MS coin when the talons on this date are rounded and appear to show some detail but it may be AU with a second look at the wing tips ....Would like to see a better picture.