| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,108 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
193 Posts |
Well now that I got your attention, I don't know if this really qualifies as eye candy, but I like it  I posted this on the Grading forum, if you wish to give a opinion on its grade https://goccf.com/t/20690click on image for larger picture Image Insert: Image Insert: |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
204 Posts |
I like candy like that . My grading isn't that good for high grades (or in general) but that looks easily MS65+ (over 65 is out of my league, so I stop at my limit). In any case, that's a very rare beauty! Congrats! |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
are these your own pictures? The fields look very clean and may justify for a 65 or higher but the small rub over the ear kind of bothers me, it could be a weaker struck coin but doesn't show any appearance of it anywhere else (and 79-S is usually one of the sharper struck coins of the series), then when you combine that with the break in cameo appearance in that very spot it makes me more concerned on if it is just lighting that makes the fields look so clean or if it actually looks that way in hand.
Edit: I looked at the difference between lighting from the first pictures you took and these and can say I think it should grade a MS-64 and the lighting you used this time made the coin look allot better than it did in the first pictures you took
Edited by Bryan1315
10/23/2007 11:49 am
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
193 Posts |
quote:
are these your own pictures?
Yes I have discovered axial lighting. quote:
Edit: I looked at the difference between lighting from the first pictures you took and these and can say I think it should grade a MS-64 and the lighting you used this time made the coin look allot better than it did in the first pictures you took
The first photos were taken in the holder, I removed the coin to take the second set of pictures Bryan1315, I have posted a detailed view of the Ear in the grading forum. Thanks for looking Edited by 7070
10/23/2007 1:12 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
looking at the picture you added I think it is a strike anomaly instead of wear. If I were to send this coin in I would expect a MS-64 and anything above that would be that much better. I am just not confident in my ability to grade by pictures to go any higher above 64 on most coins unless I have seen the coin in hand before the pictures were taken but it is a beautiful coin and would be one I would be proud of just as you are. And as I said above your photography skills in the second set of photos are improved 100 times from the first set
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
632 Posts |
7070, or anyone, On this particular coin, how do you tell the difference between a second reverse and a third reverse?.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
193 Posts |
quote:
7070, or anyone, On this particular coin, how do you tell the difference between a second reverse and a third reverse?.
I believe that this Morgan is the third reverse,(most common type) The arrow feather is at an angle. Type 2 the feather is straight. Image Insert: If I am wrong, I'm sure someone will be along to correct me in a few minuets |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1984 Posts |
I don't know whether it's a trick of the light or what, but the pictures of the obverse make the coin look like a dipped slider. Without it in hand, I really couldn't say for sure. If truly a weak strike, MS-65 not out of the question.
Edited by halfabustisbetter
10/23/2007 4:37 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
193 Posts |
Definitely not a dipped slider.
I bought this from David Bowers in (I think) 1979.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1984 Posts |
The pattern does support strike weakness. Without it, we're talking superb gem.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
632 Posts |
Thanks 7070. I like the coin and the pictures...very nice.
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,108 |
|
Posted 10/23/2007 11:36 am
