To people who are new to the Morgan series. Look at the reverse. Those are die polish lines, usually highly characteristic of PL or DMPL coins. I would be surprised if it were not PL.
Thanks.I always thought those were lines or scratches from cleaning. Now I note they all go in the same direction and will know what they are..
Capthank is correct but I would be careful with that and use it as one piece of data. Cleaning, wiping and whizzing can/will also result in parallel hairline marks on the surface. So don't be fooled. These are scratches into the coins surface. Whereas, polishing lines will result in raised lines on the surface because the die is polished and the scratches are in/on the die, the silver flows into the scratches when the coin is struck. I would suggest looking harder at the lines (on any coin) and try to determine are they into or onto the surface. BTY, nice coin Capthink, Thanks for Serving and welcome home.
Sorry, you are wrong. Those are classic die polish lines. Have seen them hundreds of times on Morgans. Those are NOT cleaning or whizzing lines—they can be parallel, but are far less symmetrical.
You may have misunderstood me. I'm not saying those are whizzing lines, I'm saying that polishing marks can be mistaken for whizzing or buffing, if you don't know what your looking for or at. These are polishing marks, as have been identified previously. I was just suggesting to take a close look to confirm what one thinks they see. The differences can sometimes be very subtle, wouldn't you agree? Thanks for allowing me to clarify.
Ok, I think it was just the wording. Sorry for jumping to conclusions—we are 100% in agreement. Some harsh cleaning can cause deep, parallel striations. You are absolutely correct. I think we agree that this coin is an example of die polish. The coin looks PL to me. If, for some reason it wasn’t, I would resubmit for reconsideration, as it is an obviously PL to me.
No worries. I have thick skin and didn't take it with any animosity. Yes we are in agreement, polish lines. Also I agree that it should be PL, certainly from the reverse, the obverse just doesn't look mirror like to me but that may simply be the photos. I re-read my original reply and it is somewhat poorly worded. Good hunting. I'm still looking for 8 Morgans to have a complete circulation set. All the expensive usual suspects.
Been there/ done that twice. I wish you the best. I had a full MS set, except for the obvious culprits—1889cc, 1893s, and 1884s. They were AU 50 coins. Sold it about 6 years ago, and bought lots of PL and DMPL Morgans, including a new 1893s AU coin.
Here's the reveal - PCGS graded it an MS65. I'm still new to this, and I have some questions - -What exactly are those streaks on the high points of the obverse (jawline, hair, a bit on the cap)? They aren't dings, really, but I can't explain them. -Also, I'm stumped as to how they didn't give this at least a PL designation. It even looks more reflective in hand. The only thing I can think of is that the devices on the obverse don't have a frosted look to them, but I thought reflectivity is all that matters for Morgan PLs?. I don't particularly mind as I paid only regular 80-S money to buy this coin, but on trying some of the common tests like looking at reflections on a printed piece of paper, I was able to read text off well over 3-4 inches away on both sides, and that's with the slab, which makes reflections less clear.
From this picture, the obverse does not look Prooflike. From the other, it does. Proof Like coins are hard to grade from photographs, but from the reveal photo, it definitely doesn’t look like a prooflike coin. It does look like an ordinary 1880s MS 65. The reverse is another story.
Hmm, this is a handheld photo I've taken roughly 9 inches away from the coin and then cropped in, you can clearly see the reflections of my finger and my cellphone camera. Under the right lighting conditions, I can make out individual fingers of my hand from the reflection 2+ feet away, a bit higher for the reverse. Hence my question as to what exactly makes a coin called prooflike, is it not just the reflectivity? I'm looking to learn.
@dbc99 I've owned a few San Francisco Morgans from the 1880-1882 date range that looked similar. Sometimes the reverse holds it back (just misses PL). Other times it's just a toss-up. These are the most common dates (including for PL) and so it can take more (meaning they can be conservative) for the TPG to actually grade it PL (I don't always agree with that, but it happens).
I agree with the above. This date comes well-made, so they tend to be conservative. I also believe the grade may just be bumped up a bit if a coin just misses PL. That said, your coin does look like a 65 in the reveal pic, though less PL.