| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 1,047 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
*** Edited by Staff to Add Year / Mintmark / Denomination to Title. Titles are Important! ***Yes I have a lot of these. Got a roll from my grandmother that she acquired in the 50's in Nevada (as well as the 93-O and a few others) and, it seems, she might have wiped a couple of them. This one seems free of hairlines under 10x magnification so hopefully a clean coin!  
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5672 Posts |
Don't be so quick to blame your grandmother—it could have happened many years before she acquired them. This one looks like there's a heavy hit behind the eye that might limit it to MS-63. Otherwise it would be a solid 64.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
Nice strike on the eagle's breast feathers.
I have always had a preference in this regard, although it makes no difference to the grading. Nice clean 'powder puff' cheek on Liberty, which is always of advantage to the coin.
Obvious blemish on star in front of Lib's nose. A single small rim ding on the reverse. Slightly out of focus pictures dull the luster a bit, and make it a little harder to identify a few tiny nicks and scratches that may be there. Photographed under plastic, and that doesn't help with the grading, either. TPGraders aren't faced with this problem.
MS-62 or 3, but may grade higher with sharper pics. If no hairlines as OP indicated, the higher grading is a strong possibility.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
The reverse seems to show full luster, but not the obverse - guessing it's been wiped, however lightly. I'll say AU-58.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4989 Posts |
More detailed photo of obverse, out of her plastic case.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
18673 Posts |
tough call on the cleaning. AU58 possibly details but I don't think it was that bad
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
612 Posts |
All I can say is WOW, what a difference. In case + fuzzy picture = low MS, out of case + clear picture = 58.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
Luster isn't blazing on it but it does have full cartwheel on the obverse. I'll probably send this over to PCGS at some point as a test case to see how they grade it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
612 Posts |
Quote:
I'll probably send this over to PCGS at some point How can you justify spending $35 to $40 on a 1882 P Morgan at PCGS in hope of getting it graded MS-62, when you can buy already graded MS-62's by PCGS at ebay for $40.? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
Most of the slabbed clean cheek Morgans that I have are in 64 or 65 holders so that would be the hope. TPG's seem to care less about marks in the fields. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
In fairness though it probably would come back AU58 possibly details, as there is some noticeable luster impairment on the cheek and some hints that it was wiped in the accumulation of toning around the devices so I'll probably just chalk this up as a nice unslabbed AU58 coin.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36777 Posts |
I don't see signs of cleaning on this one. Toning isn't the best for eye appeal though. I think it will go MS-63.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1316 Posts |
My gut says AU-58 slider. However, 1882 is by far the best date of the series...
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,047 |
|
Posted 05/06/2020 08:53 am
