What would you grade this Common Date Morgan?

Lets call in the local '81 O expert @HawkeEye

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd say it would 65 - especially being a tougher NOLA coin.

 

Sorry if some of you feel like wasted time. I was not trying to get people to VAM the coin, rather simply give your opinion on the grade with an unbiased eye. I know personally that knowing it’s an 1881-O would certainly have an effect on the grade versus an 1881-S. So again my apologies if you felt duped or wasted time trying to VAM the coin.

 

The funny thing is, when I first saw the obverse picture, I was thinking 81-O or 81-P. The luster wasn't quite flashy enough for a gem 81-S. The pictures make much more sense now. I still think 64 for the grade, though.

 

• 
  YouTube · Super Ravel
  
  4:36
  Pee-wee's Big Adventure (Biker Bar Fun Scene)
  Aug 3, 2015

Better put your dancing shoes on

 

TEQUILA!!

 

You're off the island mister....

If it's any consolation Hawkeye says this is the most common VAM for 81-O

 

Yup sez right on the can.....acetone will remove tar and feathers ...

 

Yeah the crack through the mint mark is a dead giveaway.

 

I just changed my example in my database from VAM-1E to 53 about a month ago..

 

@jtlee321 I still think it’s a 65. And I like your method (maybe it’s because I don’t try to VAM ); it helped remove the bias of the more expensive coin. I do think the TPGs could be more strict than we were here, but if you compare to other 1881-O MS 65 examples, your coin looks on par or better.

By the way, that guide is a bit high. I’ve seen plenty of MS 65s sell in the $600-$800 range (for your typical untoned example).

For example, take this one from GC:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/646957/1881-O-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-PCGS-MS-65

You should still send it in. I’m not sure if now is the right time (with many posts saying the TPGs are in one of the tight cycles) but it’s worth a try at some point.

 

Yeah I think it's so cool everyone should start doing it.

 

I think it’s ok once in a while.
Maybe one can also mention that the coin should not be VAMed or attributed. Just focus on grade.

 

To me this was not something to blow off nor do I consider it wasted time. I count this as a great learning experience.

 

I can assure you it was the first and last time I will do something like this. My goal was to try and strip the bias typically associated with date and mm. I find it unacceptable that TPG's shift the grading standard around for different date and mm coins. To me every Morgan Dollar should be graded to the same standards regardless of how rare it is or how common and nice they come. A 65 is a 65, a 64 is a 64 and so on and so on. This was only meant to be an intellectual exercise.

Yes, I do know that actual sales prices for 1881-O Morgans range in the $600 - $700 range. My point was the radical jump in value from 64 - 65. Typically that indicates that a TPG will grade that date mm coin on a much stricter bias.

 

I agree with your point that the Morgans should mostly be treated equally, but unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be the case.

By the way, what do you think of your example vs the linked GC MS 65?

 

The thing is, an 81-O Morgan has a very different look to it than an 81-S Morgan. They were produced differently. Assessing the luster of the subject coin, as an 81-O it has above average luster. As an 81-S, it has average, maybe even a little below average luster. Grading standards refer a coin having above average luster for one grade, below average for another grade, and average means something different for each date and mint.

 

We all grade what we see in hand, but the TPGs, no matter what they say, have political bias, guarantees, and investments to deal with, so when it comes to grading standards, certain coins get the low ball while others get the correct grade, even if the low ball coin is a better one. Most of us see this happen over and over, but that's politics.

 

I also spent like an hour or so trying to find the VAM variety. Not cool. I felt stupid as I am pretty good with Morgans that’s why I didn’t comment at all here. So where’s this ignore feature again?

 

I'm proud of myself to say the same I took a look at the obverse and instantly thought, a little dull and not as crisp as should be and was going to guess 64+ because of the date/mm.

I think it's a definite shot 65 or 65+ with the O though. Keep us updated if you send in!