MS 62 PL .....baggy cheek and fields but the obverse PL surfaces appear to make it look worse than I'm guessing in hand (so not a 60/61 but still a bit too much for a 63)....both sides show nice cameo; the reverse fields made me question the PL (obverse I'm more certain) but I'm leaning towards it being prooflike
MS63. Perhaps PL. Every mark stands out because of the mirrors. No more baggy than scores of other uncirculated CC Morgans.
I am at 63PL. Still those photos are difficult to read. The reverse seems to have a lot of flow lines. Creating a more lustrous than PL look but they gave it a pass because it is a 91CC.
I think most got it right. A few lowballs, but for the most part quite correct. It is clearly in the 62-63 range, and is PL. it got the benefit of the doubt with a 63PL grade. I probably would have gone 62PL. Since I got it for 61-62 price, it is all good. The PL is clearly there—it is just less intense cameo, and more satiny, from the die polish. Given that it is a difficult CC date for PL, it is a pretty nice coin.
Nice coin. In this picture it looks more like a PL coin than in the closeups. In addition the bag marks look less severe.
That is the problem in zooming in close on PL coins. The die polish effects tend to be quite exaggerated or minimized.
