| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 1,543 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
772 Posts |
Hopefully the Morgans buffs out there don't mind grading a few more... ---------------------------------------------------- 1878 7/8 TF   ---------------------------------------------------- 1878 s   ---------------------------------------------------- 1878 7TF   ---------------------------------------------------- 1898   ---------------------------------------------------- 1896   ---------------------------------------------------- 1890   ---------------------------------------------------- 1889   ---------------------------------------------------- 1887   ---------------------------------------------------- 1884 O   ---------------------------------------------------- 1903   ---------------------------------------------------- 1888 O (Already posted in other part of forum)   I thank you for all your time. I am doing this to find out if there is anything that may be worth sending in. If you would like better pics of anything, just let me know. Thanks! Jordan |
|
|
|
Forum Mom
 United States
5877 Posts |
Okay...here are my opinions:
1878 - AU55
1878S - AU58
1878 - MS60
1898 - UNC details, cleaned
1896 - AU58
1890 - AU50
1889 - AU58
1887 - AU55
1884O - AU58 or MS63 - I would need to see this coin in hand to determine if areas show wear or are just weakly struck
1903 - AU55
1888O - MS62, great reverse toning - you're right, the cheek hits are not as obvious in this pic. I still think it could waver between 61 and 62 but cannot make a determination without seeing this coin in hand to see how deep the scratch is.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
Hi Jordan--
I can't tell if we're looking at these Morgans through plastic or not. If they're under plastic, it's really knocking down the grades because it's hard to tell what is on the plastic and what is on the coin. If they're not under plastic, several have really been beat up. Also, speaking only for myself, I'd just as soon look at each coin in separate threads rather than as a group; that way, each coin can be discussed on its own merits and it saves a lot of scrolling back and forth. Still, you've got a very nice diverse collection here.
Here's my estimations based on the images, in order top to bottom:
1878 - Looks cleaned/polished, but if not, then MS-60.
1878S - MS-60/61.
1878 - MS-60/61.
1898 - Cleaned/polished.
1896 - Cleaned.
1890 - AU-55, damaged?
1889 - MS-61/62
1887 - AU-58, cleaned?
1884O - MS-62
1903 - AU-58 or MS-60.
1888O - MS-61/62.
This is always fun! Feel free to post more Morgans!
Fred
|
|
Forum Mom
United States
5877 Posts |
Very interesting, Fred. I didn't see cleaning on all of the coins that you did. I'm curious to see what others say. Our grade opinions were very different this time.  |
|
New Member
United States
32 Posts |
I see some heavy abrasion marks on the 1898. The 1896 looks like its been cleaned too, IMO.
|
|
Valued Member
Netherlands
309 Posts |
The glow on some of the coins does look like someone took a pencil eraser, (gum) to polish the coins a little bit up, a harmless way for circulated silver coins.
Greetings, Carl
|
|
Valued Member
Netherlands
309 Posts |
(But still I would like to swap some dutch silver for some of those dollars!!)
;-)
Carl
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
772 Posts |
Some of them do have a gold tone or tint to them (which is probably what you are referring to, such as the 88 with the rainbow reverse). I was told it could possibly be due to smoke.
|
|
Valued Member
Netherlands
309 Posts |
Leaving a coin (with or without the holder) in direct sunlight gives the same result after a few days JD.
Greetings, Carl
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Susanlynn9
Very interesting, Fred. I didn't see cleaning on all of the coins that you did. I'm curious to see what others say. Our grade opinions were very different this time.
Not really all that different, Susan. Both of us kept our opinions on the lower end of the MS scale or within AU. If it had been NNC, SGS, NTC, or any of the last-rate basement grading companies, they all would have been MS-66s or above.  Also, I graded them very, very fast without looking very closely. I was studying for an AZ State certification exam (water system operator), so I was a little rushed for time during a study break. I'd still need to know if we were looking at these coins through plastic. If so, it would make all the difference in the world. Fred |
|
Forum Mom
United States
5877 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
ok I am no good at grading so this is just practice to me. I do however have a bunch of graded morgans to look at for comparison
1878 7/8-Looks like it was cleaned with a rock maybe AU-50 net grade
1878-s -looks like someone sttod back and threw the rock at this one AU-58 net grade
Reverse:- Looks O.K. with a wild looking die crack going from the leaf through the wreath all the way to the rim
1878 7TF- Cleaned MS-60
1898 Same rock cleaned it as the 78 7/8 TF AU-50
1896-AU58 Cleaned a long time ago
1890- MS-60 looks like it has wear in the hair above the ear
1889- Gonna say MS-62 it is one of the best ones of the bunch
1887- Rock to clean AU-50
1884-O- MS-61
1903- AU-58
1888-O MS-62 I think this is the best coin of the bunch
Edited by Bryan1315
04/20/2006 10:46 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Susanlynn9
They all look raw to me.
I was thinking they might be in 2x2 flips or cardboard holders which might have friction scratches. |
|
Forum Mom
United States
5877 Posts |
I could be wrong, but I didn't see any sign that they were in holders of any kind in the pics above.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
looks raw to me also, looks like he has them laying on a flat surface without any kind of holders around the coins by the pictures
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
772 Posts |
Yes, these coins were raw.
Jordan
|
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 1,543 |
|
Posted 04/19/2006 11:56 pm
