1890 O Morgan - weak strike or wear

Hey - I saw this on ebay tonight:

Is the flatness and discoloration wear or a weak strike? PCGS graded it an MS64 - so they obviously think it is a weak strike. How do I tell the difference?

(Note: I have been looking at graded coins on ebay to help improve my grading ability. I also obfuscated the seller's name.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That does not look like "wear" to me and the lack of detail on the rev, claws, bottom left wing tips and breast also have a flatness that that doesn't match normal wear patterns.. That said I would call it a weak strike from the pics but would need it in hand to be sure.

 

You know what I think? Someone was sipping the old New England maple syrup the day it was graded.

 

weak strike

 

Again? Really?

 

https://www.coinagemag.com/how-to-grade-morgan-dollars-a-visual-guide/
Now you did it, Where do you see Wear?


Key points to review on a Morgan Silver Dollar when grading:
Liberty's face: Look for wear on the highest points of the hair, particularly the area directly above the ear.
Eagle's chest: Check for wear on the raised details of the eagle's breast feathers.
Wing details: Examine the raised details on the eagle's wings for signs of wear.
Inscriptions: While less prominent, check for wear on the raised lettering of the date and "E PLURIBUS UNUM".

Can I get a vote for Tooled?
I'd have to vote wear.

 

I agree with weak strike, looks like a far date as well.

 

Weak strike. The New Orleans Mint was famous for making poorly struck coins during this period. The worst were the 1895-O coins which are consistently terrible.

 

That date and mint mark are well known for weak strikes.

 

MS65 to these eyeballs. Actually well-struck 1890 for that Mint. Don't believe it? Find me a better-struck 1890-O.

 

90-O is a pancake issue, and this is no exception, being exceptionally weak.

 

A quick look on Heritage shows many MS coins with the exact same thing. Weak strike.

 

Should I have emphasized it? "Actually well-struck 1890 for that Mint."

 

So I made this comparison image of 1890 O's on PCGS's site:



You can see the 'weakness' of that year and mint. Based on these images, the original is in line with the grade of the original. I was just surprised at how flat it was. Even the 66 has weakness in the hair above the ear.

Thanks for all the responses!

 

You just described in 24 words what every cherrypicker needs to know about coin varieties, especially if they want to do Morgans.

For that, I commend you.

 

I suspect you may want to re-consider cherrypicking, especially Morgans.

Or not.

 

I'm talking mainly about strike varieties. Besides, I am not much of a cherrypicker, other than for good deals on stuff. Weak vs strong strikes on Morgans kinda appeal to me, but OMMs, RPMs, RPDs, and other errors aren't of the greatest interest to me. But I know a strong strike when I see it, most of the time.

 

Thanks for that photo. That just makes the sausage making that more confusing! lol.....but I am being serious.......grading certain years throws everything about conventional grading into the wind. 1880s, 1881S, and 1882s , that strike is XF45. It drives me nuts. That was a great presentation, thank you.

 

Didn't it seem like the soft luster, the amber tones really stood out. That is what is called unstruck luster.
For a true weak strike to happen, is to see the planchet roughness, and flat at the high points. I can't call it anything other than a weak strike.