1889 Morgan Dollar #2

MS-65.

The only concerns I see are that one little rim ding on the reverse and a few (apparent) light horizontal scratches across the face. I'd think at least MS64, anyway, but it's just hard to say how much a grader will deduct for those flaws, or at what point a "details" annotation is triggered. On the other hand, if the overall eye appeal is a good as it seems from these photos, perhaps it even gets a "*" or "+" added on. It's the sort of coin to submit just to see what happens, and if you don't like the result, do it again with the other guys.

Is that a die crack up through the "E dot P L"?

Edit: Forgot to mention that I do take note of a little flatness in the hair above the ear, but for this high volume issue there's inconsistency in the strikes and dies remaining in service a bit too long, so I'm thinking this one spot is not indicative of wear. But it still might limit the upside in its grading.

MS-63

62 due to scattered hairlines.

MS-62

Excellent pics. Struck Through Grease on the lower left wreath, older obverse die than reverse, light strike. MS-64.

MS-64, possibly 65.

Let me remind you what a textbook MS-62 looks like

I am guessing this was directed at me. I don't appreciate the condescending tone given I've looked at tens of thousands of Morgan dollars, including many '89's looking for gem coins.

Allow me to discuss my problems with this coin further.

#1. Struck from uneven dies, resulting in substantial weakness of strike throughout. That's not grease, that's just a crap strike thanks to poor die alignment. '89 is an issue that comes pretty nice, generally, so weakness of strike is going to be a big turnoff.

#2. Light hairlines across the face. Most noticeable in front of the ear. But there are several. Indicative of a light wiping, improper storage (I've seen old-style dansco's cause these), or very light mishandling.

#3. Chatter on the neck and under the lips on the tip of the chin; Should preclude the coin from a 65 easily, and combined with the other issues, enough to push it down further.

Long story short, while the reverse is nice and from the subpar pictures, appears to be of 65 quality, the obverse really holds the coin back and with larger coins like this, generally the obverse dominates in terms of grading. I could see it in a NGC63 holder, or perhaps an ANACS/IGC 64 (maybe even 65 given some of the crap I've seen in their holders) but I think this is a 62 at PCGS. Just because it's not bagmarked to heck and back doesn't mean it's not a 62, it means the issue isn't the bagmarks. The issue is the hairlines on the prime focal point on the coin.

Unfortunately, the OP has the tendency to cut the slab out of his shots, which doesn't allow me to guess the grade of the company (or really get a clue as to what company graded it at all) that slabbed it... which invalidates most of the exercise, imho, given the differences between companies when it comes to grading.

Just my Two Cents.

PS; if you want a legit guess given I am betting this coin is overgraded, NGC MS64. And I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole in that slab.