1883 O Morgan Guess Grade

I seem to remember a thread last month right after I first joined cointalk that tried to define a monster toned coin.

Your comments are the reaction one has to seeing a true monster. Don't worry, I wholeheartedly agree. This is a monster all the way and trust me I paid moon money for it. I paid so much that I can't tell you because I am not wearing flame retardant clothing at the moment. If you think the colors in the photo are vivid, you should see the coin in hand. This is how I describe the coin in my registry set:

"The colors on this fantastic reverse toned morgan are almost indescribable. The shades of orange, magenta, emerald green, and violet are so vivid they appear almost liquid on the coins surface. A blush of toning exists at the top of the obverse."

Here is the closeup photo for your enjoyment.



BTW, You just gave me a great idea for a new thread. However, I think I will wait until my current thread has run its course.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes, that is definitely a work of art. The obverse looks pretty clean too. Seems as though it was the marks on the cheek and around the nose that would've kept it from a 65? YeS? No?
Either way, it's gorgeous. I would've paid a lot for that. And I like how they put the reverse on the front of the slab, that's pretty cool.

 

Actually, I think the obverse of this coin is hideous. The luster is flat and the surfaces are sub par for an MS64. However, I really can't blame the graders for not looking at the obverse. After all, when the reverse looks like that, who really cares.

BTW, You just gave me another idea for a great thread---Post a coin with a reverse facing forward slab. I have a bunch.

 

Wow, really? Maybe it looks different in hand. I think it's a pretty nice obverse. To each his own :smile

I've seen quite a few slabs with the reverse facing forward, but unfortunately I don't own any....yet!

 

I have a few as well. This one is really clean. It screamed MS-64 to me when I looked at it. Honestly. I figured it would be given better than a 63, and I was going to take my chances that the OP didn't spend several hundred dollars on a common date Morgan, for a 65. A very nice 64.

 

Here is a portion of what Wayne Miller's "Morgan & Peace Dollar Handbook" has to say about the 1883-O:
"Because of the relatively large mintage, varies in strike from flat to fully struck. Luster is generally good, specimens with minimum bagmarks are quite common."

I am concerned that the coin was likely dipped one or more times in the past, and the third-party graders might black-ball it because of resulting damage possibly done to the luster. Would be worth the cost of submitting to find out. If you are not a member of NGC or PCGS, take it to a dealer who is and get their opinion. There's no substitute for seeing the coin in person.

If there are no cleaning problems, it could grade MS-64 or MS-65, and I've seen that occur many times on other flat struck coins.

 

Post #16.

 

Well, thats great! My concerns about the cleaning were not an issue since PCGS graded it.

 

Lets say for educational purposes that the main problem with the coin which is the subject of this thread is that it has a weak strike.

Does a weak strike in and of itself preclude a coin from being graded MS65?

 

According to PCGS guide the coin will be well struck. Which is the same for a 66. Not until 67 does it say "the strike will be sharp and almost always full." And so I would say there is a little wiggle room there for a 65 to not have a full strike.

 

If you got this exceptionally well-balanced and problem-free coin for 64-money, rhoggman, I'll say you made a killing, and I wouldn't let it go for that...

 

Just for the record I'll take what you say based off just a lousy photo over what any of these so-called "market graders" say. That said, however, this is a strong indictment. Let me see if I can't make some rhyme or reason out of what happened, here.

Let's accept this coin "market grades" mint state, no trace of wear. After all, who are we to question a TPG's "market grade?" I've seen, maybe, a handful. The next guy, maybe, a bigger slice, two or three handfuls. These guys, all they do in life...their only contribution to society, their only claim to fame (put it however you want)...is, they look at comparables, all day long, and, track market trends. They're looking at the same factors as we are...however, they're not grading as we are. Their grading focus, rather, is on where this coin reasonably fits in the marketplace, against all the comparables in their databases, and at all the various grades. This one, they conclude, rates a "market-adjusted 64." All well and good. Now all of us get to work backwards and rationalize how they arrived at that grade, based on the grading factors aforementioned in this thread.

Just my humble opinion, now; still say I really like this one, though...

 

I think 'some' here tend to try to read into things way too much and pick apart the nicest coins, always lowering the grade in their mind. If I could find problems in a coin like this, I'd probably never end up buying anything.

As I said, I may be new but I've looked at a lot of graded Morgans and also own some, including a 1883-O, and I instantly thought this would be a MS-64 for my reasons stated above. No point in reading any further into why it should have been graded lower. I'm surprised it wasn't graded higher. For MS-64 money, I will buy it off you anytime if you want to get rid of it. That is really a nice one.

 

One of my biggest questions here would be how do you get a coin with wear significant enough to make "flat spots" in the devices, but not find evidence of wear or circulation in the fields?

I do not think you can create flat spots by "thumbing" a coin, so I would expect those flat spots would have to come from actual circulation. However, if this coin was actually circulated, I would think that you would find many more signs other than the ones that could be the results of a poor strike.

Like I said.... I am just asking a question here not really trying to refute anyone who has more knowledge than me.

 

GDJ: Not to take away from your good write up there, but I believe the TPGs do use at least 5x loupes to grade. I've read it and seen them using them.
Not that it isn't out of the realm of possibility that somebody could get lazy and not use one for whatever reasons, when cameras aren't rolling.

Do you wish they would have graded that coin more harshly? I guess, I'm looking at it more like, how many of those would you go through to find one that clean again and is it really a tragedy that it received a MS-64? I hope this doesn't sound too abrasive. I'm just asking.

If the vast majority of collectors and price guides go by their grading system, I think you're better off just rolling with it. The fact of the matter is, is that you have to go by some type of standard. Somebody's standard. If you would grade this coin harsher, and tell a dealer you're only willing to give AU money for it, then they just aren't going to sell it to you.
Is there a benefit to going by ANA standards or is it just a preference? I don't have any idea how they differ so that's why I'm asking.

 

Don't forget that they looked at the coin and we are looking at a photo.

 

I guess I understand the points you are making GD, but at my level of experience it is hard for me to see what you are pointing out, even with the arrows.

I am learning though......

The coin does have some obvious toning to it, which makes it hard for me to distinguish between the toning, and the rub.

I have read articles on exactly what you are pointing out, so it all makes perfect sense. I guess my eyes are just not trained and experienced enough to see what you are seeing.