| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 2,619 |
|
Valued Member
United States
397 Posts |
Grade and thoughts appreciated!   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
The dings on the cheek are causing me to waiver.
Can't decide between a -62 or -63.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2403 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Not sure what I'm missing! I'll say solid 64+ or better.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5661 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
397 Posts |
Quote:
Not sure what I'm missing! I'll say solid 64+ or better. I hoping you are correct or I can add another one to the, I'm in the red pile. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
747 Posts |
Looks like the lighting might be hiding a bad scratch on the cheek so I'm at MS62 because of it. That is keeping my input lower. I'd go MS63+ if it were not for that and light wear on hair over ear and weaker breast feathers. IMHO
|
|
Valued Member
United States
338 Posts |
OP, would you mind sharing how you took the photo; smart phone, dedicated camera set up..?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
18640 Posts |
the 1900(O) is known for average strike. this one is a little better so that helps it. the luster appears to broken a little across the cheek. surface preservation is about 7/10 with several little scratches and nicks here and there. really close to MS64. I'm at MS63+
|
|
Valued Member
United States
397 Posts |
This is my setup.  Quote:
Looks like the lighting might be hiding a bad scratch on the cheek My photos are hiding nothing. Is a matter of fact they are showing you details you would need a loop to see. If I wanted to use a little light trickery and take the pic a foot away like many do, you all would be grading this coin 65. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
747 Posts |
Quote:
If I wanted to use a little light trickery No one accused you of trickery! Your set-up is a heck of a lot better than mine. I was just noting what looks like a scratch down the side of the back of the cheek going across the jaw line. My apologies for what you think is a knock against your photography, did not intend to get your panties in a wad. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
OK, I missed the apparent depth of that cheek gouge. I'll back off to 63.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
Quote:
panzaldi wrote: the 1900(O) is known for average strike. this one is a little better so that helps it. the luster appears to broken a little across the cheek. surface preservation is about 7/10 with several little scratches and nicks here and there. really close to MS64. I'm at MS63+ I agree. To me a MS62 Morgan is either beat-up badly, ugly or both. The reverse of this coin is gem level 65. The obverse is a 62 if being very conservative. I'd grade this piece MS63+,shot 64. The luster and strike are quite good, particularly for an "O" mint piece. Edited by BH1964
12/22/2019 7:36 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36575 Posts |
A nice fully struck O Mint coin. These photos are large so it's like looking at this coin under a microscope. Easy MS-64 for me with odds it would come back 65.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11880 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
338 Posts |
Are the lines that run across UNITED a crack or scratch?
|
| |
Replies: 16 / Views: 2,619 |
Posted 12/21/2019 10:30 pm
