Hi, I have had this for a long time, it came from the Southern California First National Bank. My Grandma used to work there, and they gave them to employees in 1975. Just tonight I took it out of the beat-up cardboard and put it in a nice Air-Tite. I think the toning's really pretty. What grade would you give it? Thanks! Ben
I would say About Uncirculated 55 due to the rough cheek, abrasions, and wear on the hair above the ear.
AU 55. Don't see it as uncirculated. As far as details grade, it is hard to tell--there are scratches. The picture doesn't detail how bad they are as it is too small without enlarging, and distorts them too much when it is enlarged.
Where do you see scratches? They may be on the air-title, as I don't see any. Thank you for the helpful responses!
Ok, those may be on the case though. I'll see if I can scan the bare coin tonight. Thank you for the help!
I'm going to say weak struck MS61. I don't have my Morgan book handy, so I don't know if that year was known for strike issues. If the year/mint was a strong strike one, I'd say AU53. That's a LOT of bag marks, and even if it's not "supposed" to affect circulation grades, I think it's enough on eye appeal to drop it from AU55 to AU53.
I resized these for you as a coherent image in Photoshop--it was way too large from the scan. Based on these photos, I would say it is a fairly baggy MS Morgan, that is a nice looking coin. It is well struck (look at eagle's breast and hair), but doesn't exhibit much luster--that is probably from the scan. I would go with MS 61 based on the improved images. I stand corrected from what I said previously, based on normal sized images--this coin would grade, and not a details coin, nor is it circulated.
Thank you very much for the resizing my photos and the in-depth commentary. I'm happy to hear that it's not a details coin and that it's MS. The lack of luster is from the scan, in person it's quite a beautiful coin. Thanks again!
Remember the rule: Rule #1) Take the coin OUT of the holder before taking pictures. Rule #2: See Rule #1.