An instructional GTG. 1883cc Morgan Dollar

Let’s make this a teachable thread for collectors. I picked a coin that is NOT mine, to make it completely objective. It is a coin that any collector could afford, and own. Since most generally use our opinions to guide judgement, let us set criteria and break down the elements in grading a Morgan. First, Morgans do have bagmarks. That is a given, based on storage. Second, they tend to exhibit cartwheel luster. Third, strike quality is very variable. Given that this is a Carson City mint, it has a solid strike. So, in grading this coin, let’s take crucial factors into consideration:

Surface preservation obverse/ reverse. Is there wear or none? Are there typical, distracting or no obvious distracting marks?

Strike-obverse/reverse. Strong, average, weak, problematic. Key points of the coin that display strike, such as Eagle’s breast, hair, cap, etc.

Luster- obverse/reverse. Brilliant, strong, medium, low, impaired

Eye appeal-obverse/reverse. Extraordinary, strong, good, average, below average, substandard.

Distractions and problems that would lower grade. Any special negatives?

Assets that would raise grade. Die cracks, heavy frost, proof like surfaces, cameo, etc.

Let’s describe the coin in as much detail as we can, instead of just commenting “MS 62, nice coin” so we can all learn from each other, please. This will help sharpen our grading skills, and enable newbies, or new to the series learn from each other.

Here is the coin. Please do not search auctions, websites, etc. Let us equal the playing field. Also, no criticism of each other—stick to the coin, only, please. We can be totally objective. This should sharpen our eye, and give us objective criteria for future GTGs. I will save my comments for last, so as not to influence anybody in any way. This thread is intended for BOTH experienced and newer collectors, so we can share our experiences. Thanks for this exercise, in advance!


Here is the coin, with good pictures:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

65PL nice and frosty with reflective surfaces and some marks such as on the rim e.t.c and I think i see carbon spots but overall its not bad for being 138 years old.

 

Ooo! I never get to be first for GTG threads. I always wish they are structured like this, so kuddos for your for setting the standard!

I am going with 65 PL. Granted, I have no experience with Morgans whatsoever. Fields seem reflective and sharp contrast to devices, thus my PL designation. Wear seen on superior ear curls and maybe slightly on cheek, but may just be me. For reverse I am seeing focal points of breast may be worn (not sure of original design) and contact marking slightly evident superior to eagle at 12 o'clock. Very nice coin and can't wait to learn with the objective thread!

 

^^^^Would've said more but I'm not a huge type'r if you know what I mean.like to keep it short and simple.

 

It is alright, you beat me to it! Maybe one day I'll get first reply.

 

I see afew scattered marks on the cheek, average strike, neutral toning, and PL surfaces that bump up the eye appeal some. I'll guess 64PL although I could be misjudging the cheek marks.

 

I see those marks on the cheek that almost look like a strike through of some fabric. And, under the chin I see what looks like a clash mark. Plus, the surfaces look very cloudy. So, given those negatives I don't think I could give it more than MS 60.

 

64+, the obverse does not make PL but the reverse appears to be.

 

I never knew that die cracks could raise the grade. Learned something new at CT today. Would die clashes also raise grades? I think I see a possible clash on the reverse between the Eagle's left wing and the wreath.



I won't be leaving my guess because I don't really do GTG well enough yet, but am leaving this comment to follow along. Thanks for this educational thread!

 

The devices look really frosty, no major distractions, the reverse is strongly PL, not sure about the obverse. I'd want to examine the cheek more closely in hand before I purchased....but conservatively, overall a solid 65 from me.

 

I'm at a solid 65PL

Surface preservation obverse/ reverse. Is there wear or none? Are there typical, distracting or no obvious distracting marks? There is no wear. There are a couple dings on the coin but overall it is minimally baggy. Plus, due to the cameo effect...such marks tend to look exaggerated in photos.

Strike-obverse/reverse. Strong, average, weak, problematic. Key points of the coin that display strike, such as Eagle’s breast, hair, cap, etc.. Although not 100% fully struck, I would consider this coin have a very strong strike.

Luster- obverse/reverse. Brilliant, strong, medium, low, impaired - Brilliant luster on this coin.

Eye appeal-obverse/reverse. Extraordinary, strong, good, average, below average, substandard. - Very strong eye appeal here.

Distractions and problems that would lower grade. Any special negatives? - No, I see nothing problematic about this coin. It does look like it MIGHT have a minor die clash (which is not my thing).

Assets that would raise grade. Die cracks, heavy frost, proof like surfaces, cameo, etc. - nice frosting...PL for sure, might even be DMPL.

 

This one looks like Vam 5A , One I would like to own.
I will Say MS-64 , Looks like some check Rash from a cabinet rub possibly but otherwise not alot of marks that I see on the obverse. I think the obverse looks frosty in the pics and there way be some marks in the frost on the face but not the coin itself. Reverse looks almost proof like to me.

 

MS65 PL

 

Thank you for this, and my goodness, what a coin.

 

Love to get some more responses, to see if this format for GTG is more effective.

 

I went MS 65 PL

Surface preservation-
....no wear but a few distracting areas: a longer mark or luster break (can't tell for certain) on the cheek, a spot to the right of the S of Pluribus, and a few scattered reeding hits

Strike-
....looks good (I don't see it playing much of a role positive or negative in the grade of this coin)
Luster-
....hard to tell, I'm guessing it is strong enough

Eye appeal-obverse/reverse-
...solid...PL look adds to the appeal while the one spot previously mentioned is a slight negative

Distractions and problems that would lower grade. Any special negatives?
....nothing outside of what I previously mentioned

Assets that would raise grade. Die cracks, heavy frost, proof like surfaces, cameo, etc.
....I don't see any of those adding to the grade...I'd expect the "CC bump" to be more in play than any of those here

 

I think that some of the marks on the lower cheek look like roller marks, which should not affect grade. but I'm staying at 64.

 

ddddd brought up the CC mintmark. I thought about it when I posted earlier, but didn't mention it. But yeah, it quite possibly qualifies as an "asset" that could improve the grade.

 

Everybody did very well. See, this kind of format helps people learn from each other’s knowledge.

As I said, I do not own the coin. I have never seen it. I bought it as a present for my daughter-in-law, for her birthday. She started to collect coins 4 years ago. I thought it was a nice introduction to MS Morgans using the criteria we have all used.

Surface preservation: a solid MS coin. no major distractions. The cheek has some toning spots, covering a few minor bagmarks in the cheek area. There is a minor contact scuff in the left side obverse fields, but it is superficial.

Luster: solid and blooming. Very frosty, and kind of jumps out.

strike: above average. Typical for a CC mint coin.

eye appeal: an attractive coin, with lots of cameo. Reverse stronger than the obverse, but definitely strong in that department.

distractions: none significant

assets: strong cameo/ contrast appears PL, or possibly DMPL.

I would have graded it MS 65 PL. Here is how PCGS went for the ride: