GTG: 1881S Toned Blazer

Guess:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@physics-fan3.14 , hope u can work with these photos buddy.... Natural lighting on #1#3#5 photos, department store lighting on photos #2#4...

 

I'd guess 62 or 63 on a good day .

 

Those pics are a little tuff to grade from but I see a 64 all day long. Is it in an early ngc slab? If so I'd say it's got a 65 up on the label

 

63

 

I'm seeing an easy 65 and 66 isn't out of the question, if my impression of the "black" marks on the upper cheek is correct. The curved one between nose and eye is the only one which gives me pause. Really like what your "natural" light does - is that sunlight? It seems to cut through some of the, um, digital exuberance for "marks" even if it doesn't present the coin in perfect contrast. There's nothing happening in the fields. Note there isn't a single spot where light is directly reflected on the obverse, which is the signature of a mark deep enough to be relevant. The quality of the reverse isn't in question; only a couple talons even show the beginnings of an imperfect strike. Note the spots in the reverse field directly east of the (eagle's) left wing, and the couple near the chin on the obverse - that's what you expect to see in digital imagery from "relevant" marks on a coin.

With that said as a rule, the exception is the toning (every rule has an exception). It can form over marks like that and reduce their reflectivity.

I wouldn't kick it out of my collection.

 

Older NGC holder, the one right after the no-line fatty holder... Coin looks way better in-hand, the few marks are really exaggerated in my amateur images

 

My guess = really nice 64. One of those dates we can afford to be demanding of to call it "gem". Of course if the coin looks "way better in hand" ...???

 

It's not "amateur images," it's digital photography in general. In fact, the better you get at imaging, the worse the marks look compared to reality.

It's the bane of digital coin imaging. As I've said before, capable in-hand graders new to grading from images consistently undergrade digital imagery.

 

I could see it in a 65. The strike is nice.

 

Tough without in hand. The marks on the chin make me think hi end 64. Older holder so no plus.

 

imo the only thing that would keep it from a 66 is the rim ding.
Keeper for Sure.

 

Ms-64 /65 regrade

 

BTW here is the grade..... I almost forgot to post, well, I did forget to post until now

 

I can read this pic better , though I'd say it's a 65 with this pic . That would be in my always a grade low on Morgans . Nice coin , with booming luster and clean fields .

 

I would never crack her

 

Your consistency makes you a darn good grader.

 

But I read those 1st pics as a 62 or 3 . Have to remember that Morgans are large chunks of silver so rub marks and contact hits won't affect the grade as bad as say on a dime . Especially with large magnified pics whose marks really seem bigger than in hand .

 

I'm going with 65 as well. Looks like you could signal neighboring villages with that luster.

 

Agreed Rusty as the 34 D Peace I posted in hand looks so much better then the assigned grade. It was imaged with a scope at high resolution thus every hit shows the major ones as well as the light ones. That the issue using the scope it shows everything . Where the right lighting and a 10 Meg point and shoot will tell a different story.