1891 O Morgan for grading (Part 3)

I don't want them to be MS. I said they were AU, and I sold them as such. I was just making sure I didn't make a mistake (these are $100-200 coins in low MS). I am just trying to understand the standards for AU Morgans.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

All three have cartwheel luster. I do not have good enough photography equipment to capture it well.

 

IMO, The coin's grade is $45

 

Morgan dollars are judged more harshly, for several reasons. 1. They are large-- lots of room on a coin that size to show imperfections. 2. Handling- since so many MS Morgans are baggy, but still show strong luster, any coin displaying luster breaks is automatically graded lower. 3. There are lots of weak Morgan strikes. 4. Morgans are fairly common in most dates. I have owned many high grade 1891o coins that were good strikes, and were dripping with tons of luster. Nothing wrong with a nice AU coin-- many high grade AU coins look nicer than baggy MS Morgans. That Seated Dollar you pictured above is insanely overgraded. No way it is worth AU 58 money. First of all, the scratches on the reverse would have made that coin an AU details coin, IMHO. Second of all, it just isn't an eye appeal coin.

 

None of them have much luster, compared to MS coins. They have adequate luster for AU coins. Nothing to do with photography.

 

Do they grade this date on a curve?

 

I completely agree with your statement, but also completely disagree with the practice. Grading should be based solely on the state of preservation, not populations. I guess this is a question that's been at the heart of the hobby forever, but why have a scale at all if there's really no ratio or standard?

 

Agree 101%!

 

This statement is why I am confused and frustrated. You keep telling me how little luster my coins have, but when I look at them in hand, all three of them have full cartwheel luster in the fields (this one in particular), which is why I can here asking if they were MS or not. The other two I agree are mid-AU. From what I see on this coin, I agree with AU, but there is no chance that this is lower than AU-55.

You actually graded the other two higher than this one (AU-53 vs AU-50), although in hand, this one is noticeably nicer (#1 is the worst of the three) and is the only one that looks close to MS. So does this mean that I should completely disregard everything you said about this coin's luster from the pictures?

How do you know whether or not my pictures are not capturing the luster well? Do you have the coins in hand to compare them to? Have you taken pictures with an iPad before? Do you know how they affect a coin's appearance? Did you ignore all of the other pictures I uploaded of this coin?

Those were my thoughts exactly. Just seeing if there was any bias to other coin series. The seated is an AU details coin to me as well.

 

@SuperDave @Cascade

 

More pictures. How is this AU-50?

 

The scratch-like thing in the first picture is a rogue hair, not a scratch.

 

Again the members here are giving an opinion based on the evidence of your images. In a court of law everything is based on facts of the case. That said one can't give an unbiased opinion based on the evidence that has not been placed before them. That being...Having the coins in hand and seeing the coins first hand.
Basically you're asking the jury to tell you what you want to hear based on hear say evidence . I'm not a lawyer but do know he said,she said isn't going to win any case in a court room or elsewhere . Only facts will....and the facts are your images.
When you have collected as long as some of us have.....you will realize that some of the coins that you possessed at one time, and no longer do ,may of been a mistake to let go.
Be it for one reason or another.... it's history and you can't reverse what has already been done.....only live and learn.

 

I know that it is hard to believe what I say vs my images. That is why I took more photos which I hope show the luster.

Since these coins are AU, I do not mind letting them go. I am trying to learn the AU grades of Morgans, and I am finding it frustrating based on what I see in hand and what the members here see in the pictures. I am not sure if it is my pictures misrepresenting the coin, or me misinterpreting an apparently-unstandardized grading system.

 

Let's break this down to a generality first. They were resold at a profit of over 50%. You really want your whole life to go that way.

Had you spent large amounts of time and effort on presenting them in just the right place at just the right time - depending on luck - you could have gotten $20 more apiece for them. Yes, this is a somewhat-pricey issue in upper grades, but they're raw. Or, you could have sat in front of a baseball game with a beer.

Your grading impressions are accurate, and your images more than sufficient for appropriate evaluation. This specific coin, here, might have been worth the gamble for slabbing, but I would not personally go higher than AU55 for it. The strength in the details is balanced by the prominence (and quality) of marks hard to attribute to anything but circulation. I, personally, won't go AU58 on a coin which wouldn't obviously be at least a good MS63 had I decided it was Uncirculated. That's the problem with the Seated Dollar posted previously.

You only get to have so much worry in life. Don't waste it here, there's no need.

 

They are AU, based on discernible wear. Most AU coins have some luster, but MS coins have no wear. All three of those coins have some discernible wear, and every single collector who answered agreed that there was SOME rub. Why be unhappy? They are nice AU coins. Whether they are AU 50 or 55 does not make any significant diffference with those coins. From all the pictures you have posted, they are 3 nice, unspectacular AU common Morgans, with some light AU rub. No problem with that. That date only gets pricey in higher graded MS specimens, and NONE of those 3 are close to MS. I graded all of them in the low to mid AU range. None of them appear AU 58 from photographs. So, what exactly is the problem? You resold all three for a profit. You should be happy.

 

58/63 slider. Personally I would have taken the gamble but don't fret. You still made $$

 

The only problem is that these coins would grade AU-55/58 based on the measures in place (little wear, >90% of luster present, etc). However, they are considered AU-50/53 simply because they are a common-date Morgan. How does that make any sense? For me, An AU-58 is an AU-58 and an MS-65 is an MS-65, regardless of the date and type. To say otherwise is hogwash and simply a marketing ploy.

I am a very technical person, and I grade very technically. I do not believe in market grading. That is why I am having difficulty grasping your system.

 

I'm not worried about them grading MS. I just posted here to make sure. I just don't agree with the modified grading scale for Morgans.

$30 was an average. I sold three commoner AUs in the same lot. Worked out to be $30 apiece.

 

They would NOT grade AU 58, , based on the wear that I see. You can be as technical as you want. AU 58 coins are sliders, that on any given day could grade MS. Those coins simply would not grade as AU 58, as there is more wear, less luster, and the wear is more significant than you are seeing on them. Believe whatever you want-- those are NOT AU 58 coins, period. Think whatever you want--no way they are 58s. End of story.