GTG 1884-S Morgan Dollar

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't see any worn chest feathers.

 

AU-58

 

Images are too small to really assess the coin, but based on the images, I'd say 62?

 

What are you seeing that tells you this Coin has been in Circulation, please explain thanks.

 

There is a touch of rub in the hair above the ear.

 

looks like it took a hit on the rim on the obverse, lower right. Bag marks on the back in the fields. deep hit above 'R' in America on the reverse? The pictures don't help the grading either.

 

I think with the pics being so small, any guess at the grade will amount to a true 'guess', and not an educated assessment.

@James S can you post larger images?

 

To me, it looks like a nice AU coin that's been in a PVC holder for a while.

 

That's as big as I can get the picture with what I have to work with, the sellers images are a shade foggy to me and that's what I have to use

 

Did you try right-clicking and opening the image in another tab/window? That usually allows the full size image to be saved.

 

My eye thinks it's a '94. Might just be the pics, but the luster looks muted, possibly more luster in the protected areas...evidence of circulation or a past cleaning?

 

Con

Congratulations you win the consolation prize jk yes I made a mistake in my post

 

From what I can see... This coin would either go AU Details or possible UNC Details. The coin looks like it has been dipped out. I don't see any luster spokes in the images. The surfaces looks almost lifeless and absent of any original mint luster. Is this coin RAW or certified? It looks like it might possibly be in a PCGS Rattler, but I am reading as much into the image as I can. My guess of course could be off, as again, I am basing everything on these images.

 

UNC Details-cleaned.

 

It's Raw

 

There's a reason a coin of this value is offered as a raw coin. Now ask yourself why.

 

If only that was an 84s

 

AU details. Definitely light circulation on the cap, hair, and eagle’s Breast (not a weak strike, just lightly circulated). Would have been an AU 55, were it not for the fairly obvious cleaning. Plenty of cleaning marks, and abrasions.

 

I'm going to go with AU details. There looks to be a touch of wear on the high spots on both sides (a slight color change is visible in these areas). This is also a typically well struck date.

The appears to be no luster present due to being over dipped which is what I say details.