1891 O Morgan for grading (Part 3)

Found this at a We Buy Gold shop for $19. I would like to know if I undersold it as an AU for $30.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

AU

 

imho, no.

 

In my opinion out of the 3 you've posted, this one would have the best chance at MS. But that's just my opinion.

 

AU

 

Low grade AU. I would go AU 50.

 

Can someone explain lowball AU grades for Morgans? For every other classic US coin with full luster and slight rub, there would be no disagreement about AU-58. But for Morgans, they are automatically considered low AU.

 

AU-55

 

AU 58
Max 61

 

It isn't a lowball grade. There is circulation wear on the cap, hair, and wing tips. There is wear on the tail feathers and talons. It is just a coin that has circulation wear, and many luster breaks.

 

But the fields have pretty much full luster. Is that not the definition of AU-58? At least it would be for every other coin series.

 

Not exactly. It's the amount of wear versus the amount of luster still present. Larger coins such as Morgan Dollars can have luster still present down into the XF grades. This is because the surface area is so much larger. The higher points of the coin can wear down faster than the protected areas. The difference in relief between the high points and the low points protects it.

With smaller coins you have less surface area with few high points to protect the luster. The high points on a small coin are significantly lower in relief compared to the surrounding fields which is why they lose the luster quicker.

 

I'm at 55. I've seen coins in XF holders with almost full luster in the fields. I considered them undergraded, but it happens.

 

Nope. The level of wear is more significant than a high level AU. It has nothing to do with strike, nor luster. Wear determines condition primarily. As regards luster, I've seen thousands of Morgans, and that coin has major luster breaks. It is low level AU. Yes, 91o is not a great strike damage, but that coin has circulation wear. You want to call it AU 58? Go right ahead, but in my view it simply isn't, based on wear, way below average strike, and major luster breaks.

 

I think I see what you are perceiving to be luster breaks. That is a result of my poor photography setup. Here are a couple extra pictures. The reverse was a bit worse than I had remembered, so I can understand AU-55. But anything below that is criminal.




And I presume from your definitions of AU that this coin is no higher than AU-50? Lots of rub, luster breaks, and a weak strike. Or is there a double standard that I need to be aware of?

 

There's definitely a double standard; Morgan dollars have always been held to a higher standard IMHO. I would never pay 58 money for the example seated dollar that you showed, I'd be more at 50 money just because it's just doesn't look very natural color wise to me.

 

This shows how there are few luster breaks on the devices, at least on the obverse.

 

Correct there is as you're comparing a Morgan to a seated dollar......and just like the grading curve on an 80/81 Morgan's compared to other dates.
There's nothing . ...nada wrong with an Au coin.
Depending on what series I personally prefer an xf - Au grade.
Your 3 examples as stated by others all show signs of wear....not a ms coin,luster yes they have some but it's broken and lacks luster of a cart wheel style as many, but not all ms coin show,or have.
If you paid $19 ea. And sold the 3 at $30 each to me that's a win as you're $33 in the black, plus your out lay.
We can't always hit a home run.... but a $33 profit on an $57 out lay I'll take it any day !
There's again nothing wrong with the 3 coins you posted except the fact you can't except what the members here options which in fact you asked for. They are Au. Coins...not MS. By any definition .

 

I'm at 55/58 on the Morgan.