GTG: 1893 Morgan

Because different issues have different characteristics. An 1880-S Morgan is a very different coin than a 1892-O.

But, a cleaned 1880-S is still a cleaned 1880-S

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So the grade shouldn't be the grade? Or, better still, they were born with privilege. Yeah, there's the prescription. We must penalize them to level the playing field so the others will feel included and not victimized.

 

Camaro gave you the stock answer. It has never really satisfied me though.

 

I was talking about the coin Eddiespin said he has

 

I think balls and strikes should be called the same for all coins in a series, even if some years/mm produced amazing coins and other years/mm produced so-so coins. A MS65 Morgan should be a MS65 Morgan and a details Morgan should be a details Morgan. It was either cleaned or it wasnt.

 

I used to think this way but once I studied it more...I found it doesn't make sense. Lets forget about Morgan's...lets talk about a totally different series but it's not just a Morgan issue.

The 1922-D Lincoln Cent is notorious for bad strikes due to the extreme age of the dies used. They are mushy. Not one single coin from that production was made to the same quality or strike as say...a 1912 Lincoln. They are COMPLETELY different coins with COMPLETELY different characteristics. You can't fairly evaluate them the same way.

The same is true for the Morgan Dollar series. A few dates standout and are uniquely nice (1880-S is one of them). A few dates standout as being uniquely bad (1892-O comes to mind) and the majority are somewhere in between. With the outliers...you have to treat them special because they are different coins.

 

Oh I understand your position and you have respectfully explained it very well. I just have not reached the same conclusion (at least not yet lol). To me, that approach leaves the TPGs with the power and flexibility to have a sliding scale, but only on years that they think should have it. It'd be a better conversation if we looking at some coins together while sipping on some Woodford Reserve!

 

This is really one of the main reasons that I sold both of my 1893s coins. First, I sold my XF 45 to upgrade to an AU 50. In all honesty, having completed the 97 coin regular strikes of the Morgan series, I took a really good look at a couple of the dates. I objectively looked at the AU 50 1893s, and asked myself, “would you have bought this coin, if it were not an 1893s?” The answer was a loud and resounding “NO!”
Most key date Morgan coins that are not 6 figures, or at least very high 5 figures are, ahem—ugly. My erstwhile 1893s has been posted here before, and I would think others would agree, looking objectively, and not with the lust a key coin generates. No way it would have received that grade if it were an 1899 or a 1902 o.

So, I sold it for just under $22,000, and have had fun buying coins that I really like—other series, and gem grade cc Morgans, and ultra gem common date Morgans. Technically, they are rarer than the 93s—a MS 67 common date Morgan can be had for $1200–$5000 or less, and has a population of a few hundred. After all those purchases, I still have $10,000 left, and frankly, I feel good about it. I don’t miss my fugly, overgraded, overpriced 93s. The next coin to go will be my 1889cc. Same thing—it is overgraded to make an AU 50, and not special. I would rather have “uncommon” common date Morgans, seated coinage, Liberty Nickel proofs, and other more attractive coins in high grade, than one, beat up, key date Morgan. Just my two cents about the aesthetics of market grading.

 

I pretty much agree with all that. I generally dislike the look of Morgans in that XF range, and will be on ultra eye appeal mode in the AU range. I do love the look of well worn, honest Morgans in the VG-F arena. They can be very handsome to me. For example:

 

Honestly, this is why I might target lower grades for the key dates. I think well circulated Morgan's are really attractive in their own way...those XF-AU coins tend to be hideous. So, if I can't do an MS I will probably shoot for VF or lower.

 

I agree. Here is a MS 61 currently for sale by a reliable dealer for $198,000. It is certainly an acceptable looking Morgan, but I never would have graded this one as MS. To me, it is a mid to high AU coin, for any other date. My grade would have been AU 58. Is it worth almost $200k? Hardly.

 

And to me...even at AU58 that's not a coin I would enjoy looking at. It's ugly. I don't have $200K to spend on a coin...and even I did, I enjoy be married so I wouldn't buy it anyway.

I would much rather have an 1893-S in the condition of @bradgator2's 1893-O. I just think there is tons more even appeal there and my guess is one could be had for around $4K (and my wife would stay).

 

I agree completely though there are some really nice AU-58 coins out there to

 

Obviously, I got into this way too late. I was thinking XF45 on the obverse, AU50 or 53 on the reverse, so probably would have gone with AU50. Doesn't look cleaned to me.

 

Unquestionably cleaned.

 

There are guys who know coins well on both sides here, just depends on how you interpret the pictures, in hand we likely would be much more in agreement. For the guys who say cleaned, I can see where you are coming from.

 

There are some very nice AU58 coins out there, I agree. But, based on what I have been with key date Morgan's...nice coins that technically should be AU58 tend to get a bump to MS with the TPGs.

 

Mid Au

 

That’s what I say. If red book says it’s xf then it’s extra fine. Do the TPGers take into account weak strikes. I don’t have any of these coins. Be honest members. What value does the red book grading hold. GTG. I go to the red book. Thank god and work.

 

Sounds good. But no