1882-S Morgan Is it PL? Worth submitting to PCGS?

I picked up this Morgan. It was part of roll I was allowed to cherry pick. This one caught my eye. I know 1882-S Morgans were typically well struck. I still couldn't resist. It's easy on the eyes for me. It has some surface wear, but not on the cheek where it usually winds up. My questions is, is it worth sending in? I only go with PCGS so that is the only option for me. They are 10 miles from me and I usually have the economy in my doorstep in 15 days.
Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hard to tell without pics

 

Not PL based on those photographs. Definitely NOT worth submitting to PCGS.

 

Those cheeks are awesome... Still so common I'd not submit. A shame. Awesome coin!

 

Lovely coin, but I agree with the others, no benefit of slabbing this one. Just too common in higher grades.

 

I don't see the shine or luster, but maybe it's the way you took the photo/pics ? I don't see the blazing white or mirror look.

I just bought an 1898 MS-64 PL and I can see my image in the field. The pictures above the coin looks dull copper-like so I have trouble visualizing it as Proof-Like.

 

My pictures skills are still lacking. Working on better light sources. Yes I can see my image in the field on it as well. Not as good as others I've seen, but I can see myself in it. It was a $40 pick up. I definately didn't steal it, but it just caught my eye and had to have it. I'm a sucker sometimes I guess.

 

For $40, I think you got a bargain. If the colors are as they appear in the picture, then it's not an MS coin and wouldn't be PL or blazing-white like many posted here. And for $40, I would be shocked if it was.

But still a nice coin, congrats and enjoy.

 

You can tell if it's prooflike if you can read a ruler placed next to the coin , IIRC 4 " away .

 

Looks like the fields have some depth, but like rzage commented, you'll need to see at least 4" of reflectivity on both sides to get a PL.

What I'm seeing in your pictures are hair lines on both the obverse and reverse fields. Hard to say what caused them, but it appears to have been wiped at some point. Maybe the previous owner dipped the coin and what I'm seeing is hair lines from using a cloth to dry the coin.

 

Even if it were to get a PL designation, the grade would be no higher than 62 with those hairlines.

 

I agree, borderline PL and the hairlines kill the grade.

 

not PL enough

 

I say it looks cleaned. It reminds me of the same type coin my father received off ebay. Everything this seller had was PL or DMPL. Yeah - you could read it from 3 to 4 inches away - but all the hairlines from the cleaning just ruined it.

 

Nice pick up save your money on the grading .

 

Ive seen worse looking fields inside ngc ms63 PL holders... they grade these looser due to the scratches being easier to see, with that being said i dont think this one would grade out... id say a 40/60 chance of it going PL. Its harder to get PL nowadays... i woulda pulled trigger for $40 all day long tho

 

Definately not cleaned, thankfully. I took it in to a buddy of mine who has a jewelry/coin store, and had a few other Morgan lovers look at it. I agree, with the posts stating "not PL enough", and yes it has hairlines. All said keep my money on grading, pretty coin, but just to many hairlines, and just not quite enough reflection. I'll keep it as is and enjoy it.

 

I think that's a wise choice. Just because it has hairlines doesn't mean you can't enjoy the coin.

 

It is an extremely common date, and definitely NOT proof-like. There are hairlines that would make it a possible "No grade," but I think it would grade as a generic Morgan 1882s-- if it has "surface wear," then it would not even be MS. Your jewelry store buddy doesn't seem to know Morgans all that well, btw--hairlines can often indicate cleaning.

 

Where are the hairlines and how do you tell them from bag marks?