Just sayin', I don't think it's as ugly as a '61 or '62. There are some detracting mark on the devices (obverse) but the reverse is virtually 'clean' to these old eyes..........
Yes that reverse is a mirror,sometimes these graders are cranky.I have seen some surprising grades for such fantastic toined coins.
Clean reverse. But the cheek.. Ouch. I'm thinking the color helped it out some. I'm going to guess 64
On its best day, it's a technical 64, but let it go at that money, it's a gift. Marketwise, add two grades to that. It's the definition of eye-appeal, and everyone can see its technical weakness. That's, anyway, how I'd evaluate it. Market grading is what the market will draw, and there's no way this one hammers at under gem money, in my opinion.
I know the coin. I saw it about 10 years ago. Sorry I never bought it. Absolutely stunning toning—I think this is a case where the TrueView minimizes the toning. I don’t remember the grade from back then, but I would go 63 on the obverse, and 65 on the reverse. So, it would net grade at 64, given the toning, which is near monster to monster level. A sure star at NGC, but it would bring more money in the PCGS holder. This is a spectacular toned coin, with some obverse baggines, but honestly, with that eye appeal, who cares?
62/63+ or * for the tone ,and I am not all that in love with the toning,to each their own.......but remember that 80 S Morgan's have been known to be graded on a curve,do to some of the best strikes of the series. If I were a buyer I be at 62/63 money looks as she's been a razor fight and lost.
To me this is one of those coins that the grade just don't matter all that much. The joy of owning such a pretty coin is where the fun is.