1887 morgan MS 64 really!!!!

Looks heavily circulated to me but I've been surprised before and wouldn't exactly call it(beautiful). https://www.ebay.com/itm/134018637024?_trkparms=amclksrc=ITM&aid=111001&algo=REC.S

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's an ugly 64. The patina looks like it's been "smudged around."

 

there is a bunch more at their store listed as ms-63/64 that are real ugly.

 

I agree with you @potty dollar 1878.

That is one fugly coin.

Obverse fields look impaired to left of face, fingerprints to the right of head. The 'patina' looks more like cleaning and seems to be obscuring the high points in the hair that look like wear. If that is the case it should be AU at best.

Reverse has 'marks' that look like cleaning and scratches, appearance of lots of wear.

@Jack D. Young can you tell if this slab is genuine?

 

I checked it out at NGC. It's real and it looks ugly there.

 

Any chance the picture of the NGC slab has been for another coin?

 

That's why I checked NGC verification. Same coin, same fingerprint on the reverse.
I wondered if the eBayer had used a photo of just the top of the slab, but it seems to be authentic.

 

Musta been graded on a Monday after a wild weekend and a hangover. That coin wouldn't even get AU.

 

Wow, the grading of that coin by NGC would certainly discourage me from ever using their services. As Millard just said, "That coin wouldn't even get AU."

 

Hope this isn't a violation but that is one fugly morgan.

 

I think it is uncirculated, just ugly...there may be more luster than the photo shows.

 

au details "improper cleaning" is the about the best grade I would give that one...

 

Reminds me of an artificially toned coin to cover up a poor cleaning. Not sure how it got it's grade.

 

I don't see this toning as wildly abnormal - I've seen other straight graded Morgans that look similar. That said, I don't know what causes it and agree that it's unattractive.

 

Asleep at the wheel TPG!

 

don't get me wrong.. I got a crappy looking MS morgan as well but that "toning" has been worked at in some way showing scratches and rub... This is my "ugly" morgan ... no rub no scratches and she only got a 62.. this is what i expect that one looked like before the attempt to dr it...

 

A lot of people can't tell the difference between wear and a weak strike.

 

If only just one of the TPGs produced such "anomalies"...

 

The 1887 is a common date coin. That's a coin that was technically graded as a MS 64. It's not a coin I would even consider buying unless it was sold for MS 60 money and even then, I would likely pass on it. Someone will buy it on Ebay and think they got a deal on it.

 

It's a legitimate slab.
The coin is a crusty Morgan that does not look attractive. Grade wise, 64 is likely fine. It has a clean cheek (not often seen on Morgans graded below 64) and relatively unmarked fields. The luster is likely subdued and eye appeal is below average (at least to most who would see it). Thus it gets a 64. Better luster and it might have been a higher grade!