| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 992 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
9441 Posts |
Edited by triggersmob
05/24/2007 06:25 am
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
A couple preliminary comments, Steve: Regarding the 1889 - can you get magnification sufficient to determine if there is doubling in the ear? There are a large number of doubled-ear varieties with this issue, some quite rare. Also, do I see a little "bump" on the top of the wing, right below the "n" of "In," or is it a photographic artifact? Although I'm turned off by the discoloration at the A in DOLLAR, it has all the appearance of a nice MS example otherwise.
Regarding the 1890-O: G4-G6.
The 1921 is an excellent strike for the year, and an issue that's near and dear to me. I'd love to see pics of that one of the same size as the 1890-O. Can you determine if there are noticeably fewer reeds on it than the other two you've posted? Also, carefully examine the lower reverse, below the eagle, for evidence of rusted-die pitting. My initial impression is of an obverse-limited, low-MS example.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Australia
9441 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6394 Posts |
Hi Triggersmob, More Morgans! I like the 1889 and I think it could be an MS65 candidate. Liberty's cheek has that tiny pockmark but is otherwise nice and smooth.  The discoloration on the reverse might drop it to a 64. The 1890-O looks to have VG detail but it has been harshly cleaned, likely more than once. It may also have some corrosion or "environmental damage", especially on the reverse. This one is basically a cull, worth melt value. On the 1921 I see a halo of luster persisting around the letters and in protected areas. The fields and Liberty's cheek show diminished luster and light rub. This one looks AU-53 or 55 to me. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
Boy that sure is a weak strike on that 1890-O  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
9441 Posts |
Thank you all, for your opinions and gradings. Steve  |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
The mark I saw on the 1889 is the characteristic vertical of a clashed die (from the neck on the obverse, I think), and is not the Barwing VAM-22 I thought it might be. I am still undecided on the 1921, although it turns out to be a weaker strike than I thought. Note, with this coin, the weakness of the outside lettering towards the denticles is not uncommon, and the extreme weakness of the wreath leaves is probably a strike artifact rather than wear. I don't think there is sufficient wear noted on the eagle's neck, legs and wing leading edges to correspond to the condition of the leaves. Of course, I've been wrong before. Today, even.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
9441 Posts |
Thanks for the extra info, Superdave. So what would be your actual grading on the two coins? Steve |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
quote:
So what would be your actual grading on the two coins?
Caveat: The pics are a little bright, deceptive about the actual luster and possible slight wear. 1889: Strong MS64. Two years ago, MS65 from any TPG. 1921: I'm sticking my neck out and calling it MS63. In-hand, I could say AU55. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
9441 Posts |
Thank you, Superdave. Your opinion is valued. Steve |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
547 Posts |
Boy..I sure miss that 1889 Enjoy it Steve! |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
9441 Posts |
Thank you Christina, it sure is a beauty. I hope you enjoy the coins I sent you, as much as I enjoy these Morgans. Hopefully they should arrive to you next week. Steve |
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 992 |
|
Posted 05/23/2007 08:43 am
