1881 O Morgan

Deb, I'm a weather junky and have been following the extremes of northern Arizona vs southern AZ. Flash floods and near-hurricane winds and dust storms (when not raining) down at my home base in the desert. It's nice to sit up here and gloat, but I've gotta return to the desert about the third week of September since I'm the certified water system operator for our tiny RV park and the water system needs to be chlorine shocked before the denizens return in October. This means several gallons of generator gas per day to run my air conditioner until the temps drop in the fall.

Fred

Hi awamperbob

The weakness of the O mint coins is a well known fact ,, with the rest of the mints following in order of the strike of the coins from least to best ,CC,S,P ,, Denver only minted these coins in 1921 and were basically the same strike quality as Philly.

These large coins seldom strike up fully, but the O mint coins were always the weakest of the bunch,,

So to answer your question the accepted grading standards for these coins allows for the weakness associated with them, based upon each mint of issue.

The weakness of strike is really not a loss of metal, it is a failure of metal flow resulting in a less than total detail transfer from die to coin.
many times especially on the O mint coins this lack of detail is judged as wear when in reality the coin was produced lacking the detail and has not been circulated. allowing the MS qualifier for the coin.

Rick

Perhaps I am too used to the Spanish Colonial coins - because in that realm a weak stike which causes a loss of die details IS DEFINITELY a ground for a downgrade.

The grade assigned was always based on completeness of design - like a certain number of letters in LIBERTY, FULL STEPS on Monticello or COMPLETE Horn on a Buffalo nickel not on simple metal preservation. What separates those coins except some dealer marketing strayegy?

We're getting into some fundamental grading paradoxes here. As Rick said, New Orleans minted Morgans are notorious for being weakly struck. The question might be, then, why shouldn't a typically flat O strike Morgan with absolutely no bag marks, face scrubs, or any other detracting marks be granted a high MS grade by a top TPG? After all, it's a "near perfect" coin for the year and mintmark. Not an easily answerable question since one near-perfect coin may be outclassed by a newly discovered very uncommon "more perfect" coin of the same year/mint which happens to be a sharper strike. I think it is less a dealer market strategy and more a function of the evolution of grading (at least for Morgans) by the top TPGs over the past 20 or so years in which ALL Morgans are compared with each other and O-mintmarked Morgans are just gonna get a lower grade due to their weaker strike. It's an arbitrary system which changes from year to year depending upon the TPGs' current philosophy.

A good example of this is the 1886-O Morgan in which the PCGS Population Report (Jul 2004) shows just THREE graded MS-65 with none above and the largest number in MS-62. This is not to say that if an 1886-O MS-65 were instead an 1886(P) in the exact same condition that it would grade the same; it probably would not since there are many more MS 86's than MS 86-O's: I believe the TPGs play the numbers game and with more 86 Mint States around than 86-O's, the TPGs have the luxury of more flexibility with grading on 86s and may award a higher grade or a lower grade to MS 86s, depending on their mood... and how much they want to influence the market. By keeping grades lower on some dates/mintmarks, they increase the market values on those higher grade Morgans such as the 1886-Os. The more they tighten standards on Morgans as they've been doing for the past year or two, the more relatively uncommon (by population reports) the higher grades become. I also would not want to state that certain privileged dealers might be favored by the TPGs by granting their Morgans slightly higher grades, but the potential is there.

Comparing Morgan grading standards with standards of other coin series is an exercise in futility, especially with series outside the Morgan's date range such as moderns and ancients but also including earlier 1700s and 1800s when the quality of strikes was inferior. (If Flowing Hair or Bust Dollars were graded by Morgan standards, few would grade above MS-60.) I would not consider Morgan grading more liberal in this point in time, especially since the TPGs have tightened their standards, but I would certainly call Morgan grading standards more capricious. Morgans are in a grading class of their own.

Fred

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bryan1315

in the April 2006 issue of the PCGS pop report they still only show 3 in ms65 and none higher

---

So, with no higher grades found in two years, if PCGS changes its grading strategy once again and decides to retrograde 86-Os upward making, say, the three MS-65s into MS-66s, watch all those lower MS grades suddenly devalue thus forcing owners into resubmission to PCGS for upgrades. Of course (thinking even more devilishly), PCGS could also decide that 1886-Os must follow a bell-shaped curve (long disproven by statisticians) and spread out the MS grades thus revaluing some while devaluing others. This would guarantee even more repeat submissions by the lower MS grades trying to get one notch higher on the bell curve. Now THIS is a marketing strategy!

Bob, grading is subjective because it is based on semantics. What may be a full strike for one series or year/mintmark may not be considered a full strike for another series or year/mintmark if compared with each other. The definition of "full strike" itself is not clearly defined. Take the Flowing Hair and Bust Dollar series when the technology permitted far less stamping pressure (manual screw presses vs steam-powered presses) and the dies themselves that were less strong thus mandating weaker strikes. There isn't any way that the finest specimen of an early dollar can be compared with a full-strike Morgan. Yet, there are more than just a few examples of MS-64s, MS-65s, and even a few MS-66s among early dollars (discounting the one 1804 PR-67 Bust Dollar). These higher grades are the best the Mint could do at the time, so they are awarded the higher grades. Playing Devil's advocate a little more (and getting into fields way out of my knowledge), using the "full-strike" definition as applied to Morgans, there is no way any ancient Greek or Roman coins nor early English hand stamps could ever be graded more than MS-60, the lowest possible uncirculated grade.

But, PCGS has clearly stated its grading standards: http://www.pcgs.com/grades.chtml . Some examples of their standards:

"MS/PR-64 Few marks/hairlines or a couple of severe ones, strike should be average or above"
"MS/PR-67 Virtually as struck with minor imperfections, very well struck"
"MS/PR-70 As struck, with full strike"

Note that PCGS does not define "full strike"** nor "average or above strike" (average to what?), but it fairly clearly defines condition in terms of bag marks or other imperfections. What they are saying is that there are two criteria for MS grades: quality of strike and numbers of imperfections after strike caused by post-strike pre-circulation handling (in bins or bags). Presumably, these criteria are given equal weight. And given that condition is fairly well-defined, the quality of strike becomes the parameter which will determine grade. I could argue that a full strike for an 1886-O would be relatively flat compared to an 1886(P) Morgan and that any 1886-O with almost no, or perhaps absolutely no bag or other contact marks should be awarded a higher grade than MS-65 since it is as perfect a coin of the date and mintmark which could be manufactured.

However, given that PCGS has already dictated that weaker strikes for a date and mintmark that is always weak and has no full strikes compared to other dates/mintmarks in the series are cause for downgrading, then it is indeed already extant that a particular date/mintmark will have no high Mint State grades be it MS-60, ms-65, or whatever such as we see with the 1886-O Morgans. It has not always been this way as evidenced by the high grades given to relatively inferior coins such as Bust Dollars. Thus, there already is a disparity between coin series.

Where we get into trouble is when PCGS or any other TPG changes these strike standards, or more specifically their interpretations of their own strike standards. Actually, the TPGs seem to be constantly changing strike standards for Morgans and they certainly do not apply the same standards to Bust Dollars or other older coins or even modern coins.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the only system we have.

What we need are clear definitions of strike standards, ones that will not be subject to interpretation, viz. how they will be applied to series and date/mintmarks, and the TPG's tenacity to stick with these standards. This is almost an argument for computer/machine grading. Or an argument to scrap the whole system and start over.

Fred

**PCGS DOES provide a definition of "full strike", but it is not particularly useful since nobody is actually privy to "the full detail intended by the designer" and if they were, there is plenty of room for interpretation between the designer and manufacture of the actual die used. The definition also does not go into detail of the quality of the dies at any particular mint. Per PCGS: "Full strike A numismatic item that displays the full detail intended by the designer. Weak striking pressure, worn dies or improper planchets can sometimes prevent all the details from appearing, even on uncirculated specimens."

To me, this appears to have seen light circulation. The rim on the reverse shows some dings that most UNC coins will not have. My initial guess was au 55-58, and remains the same after seeing everyones responses.
I have seen few early 80's that have been weakly struck.
But as some others have said, luster will play a part in determining this coins grade... and unfortunately scanners really don't pick up on that.
Jordan