Just got this today. Does this look like a 63?

Congrates on the sale. It would be hard for me to let my set go even though it's not complete.

Where did you sell it and do so well?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yeah, saw that when I first got the coin. It is a nicked area on the slab, where it is worn and rubbed, and nicked. The coin, itself is untouched. I tried to get a picture of the nicks on the slab with the blown up picture, but it just doesn't show, as the macro setting is at its limit, plus reflectivity. The mirror surface of the PL coin is picking up a sizable nicked area on the plastic. Look at the back picture of the slab, and you can see that it is pretty beat up--the hologram area is pretty nasty looking.


​

 

@Duke, thanks. I was lucky and found a private collector in Jacksonville who bought the entire set--I didn't have to break it up. It was in 2002, and it worked out well. I understand that he's broken up the set and sold it off to dealers. The 1893s was "VF details cleaned," and the 1889CC was "cleaned, genuine." The 1884s was not uncirculated either.

@ICE, I am not looking to do a full MS set of Morgans--just a specialty group of very pretty coins. Don't want to have a second mortgage on my condo just for the 93s, 89cc and 84s in a MS grade, and there are 6 other dates that would break the bank. I am going to limit it to 50 of the nicest Morgans I can find in 63-66 condition, and not looking to fill all the keys, as I have had that before in non-MS. With this "fun collection," I will probably get some of the low late 80's San Francisco mintage dates, and the 1899 in PL--those aren't cheap, but still affordable.

 

That's the fun about it...we can all collect our own way's.
Sounds like a neat set of coins your putting together. Good luck dude11

 

Looks better than 63 to me.. carbon flecks may have held it back.

 

I sent the scans to a friend who works for NGC (confidentially applies) and was told "it is better than a 63--you should either cross it with us, or resubmit to PCGS." So, we shall see. Unless it made a 65 (doubtful to me), it isn't financially worth it, but might be for collector purposes and personal satisfaction. Right now, I will just enjoy it as is.

 

I like it as a 63 seeing some strike weakness that might of kept it from making 64. Blending in the hair above the ear and the breast feathers seem to have less definition than some of the 64's I've seen.
The PL designation adds to value almost as much as the grade boost would.

 

Polish the slab. You may have to repeat the effort a dozen times, and the deepest nicks won't be removed. But the results will be much better and often the nicks that won't come out will be sufficiently smooth to be only barely noticeable.

Some guys like Brasso. I prefer PlastX (cheap, and available at auto parts stores and elsewhere).

Finally, a very thin dab of clear oil can help a lot, for photography. I use peanut oil. WD40 will work if you can avoid the air bubbles.
Lance.​

 

To my eye, the pictures do make the coin posted by the OP look better than a 63.

 

Somebody asked about any keys that I have in nice condition. I have two semi-key CCs on the other thread about CC coins--will post pix here (both GSA-NGC graded). They are the 1881 and 1885 CCs, which, as y'all know are low mintage years, and semi-key:

 

no it doesn't It looks like a CLASSIC MS63. whether it is PL or not is an interesting question.

 

Also on the P

ruben

 

And the scare on the cheek?

 

Are you a Morgan collector? IT IS definitely PL, and you haven't seen the coin, I have--in a dirty holder. Geez, some folks jump to conclusions like crazy. Compared to my MANY 64 Morgans that I own, and have owned, it looks like a classic 64. Being from Brooklyn does not guarantee correct grading.

Don't think the cheek is frightened.

 

I had more than a few and it is a classic 63. The PL is always hard to see through the slab or to photograph.

 

IN YOUR opinion. I wouldn't have wasted time posting it if I didn't think it was under graded. TO me it is a classic 64. Oh well, Brooklyn has never been the same w/o the Dodgers.

 

Its not below a 63, but it is a square 63.

 

Whatever, Mr. Expert. Not wasting time arguing. Some folks agree with me, some don't. I still love the coin, whether you like it or not.

I would not have spent 6 posts trashing one of your coins.

 

Hello

I don't think a 63 grade Morgan Dollar is to trash such a coin. I find it a lovely coin. I won't venture a grade, but I can see the scratch that mrbrklyn talks about and the Moderator with name unspellable makes a valid point as well. It is the nature of grading to be critical and taking it personally does not help one obtain a truer grade. If you think it is a crack out candidate, by all means, send it in and we wish you good luck and happiness! It does seem that Ruben is in the minority opinion in this case.

Amanda