I think that all grading services are insanely hard on 1880s, 1881s, and 1882s coins, as there are so many nice ones slabbed. The grade given is within what would be expected for the coin--could have graded a 63 just as easily, but as I said, TPGs are hard on that date.
You will usually find that the obverse carries more weight in grading than the reverse. However, the reverse can knock a grade down more easily. I think this was the case here because of the scratch across the "O" in OF. Chris
The coin was probably dinged for subdued luster. There may have been other factors that resulted in such a low assessment by ICG, but I can't tell from your pics. I see what might be scattered contact marks on the cheek.
I think that's it. there are so many sharp crisp 80-81-82s morgans it has to be real nice for a 63. in a lot of other years that would be an easy 63.
I thought it doesn't matter how many examples of MS/UNC coins exist in a particular year?! Shouldn't grading be strictly objective?
you can make a case for that being how it should work but in the here and now that's not how it does work. for instance what makes a 63 in say a 1917 walker probably wouldn't in a 1947 walker. they take into account the different strike characteristics between mints and over the years. the grading people have just developed that business model over time.
Yes we are very hard on certain Morgan's, I was going to give it a 60-61, mostly from the Eagle breast, could be a weak strike, 62 then.
Evidently that surface threw them off. Later die state. Some of that luster obscured by the dip. MS63, for my money.
