1883 O Morgan Guess Grade

No, Leadfoot, I don't see that as wear on the reverse (I see that breast and adjacent areas, rather, as toning, over maybe somewhat of a "weakish" center-strike). It's those obverse high-spots Doug pointed out that have me somewhat on the fence and questioning my initial technical grade. I do see your case, though. Now I'm all mixed up.

No...but really...I'm not confused as to what I think this coin could very well "market grade" at as a "crackout." Just going off the 1883-O's on Heritage, right now, this one has even the MS-66 fields and hits beat, from here to China. IMO, that's the redeeming factor that should make this coin "market grade" gem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here's a similar comparison of the obverse...

 

IMO, it is VERY difficult to grade coins from (DLRC?) scans -- they simply don't portray the luster well enough, and luster/toning/strike is exactly what's in question here.

Also, be very careful comparing scans to Heritage pictures, particularly when trying to grade the high-end grades. The differences can be so subtle even with a coin-in hand that trying to do it with pictures much less a scan is problematic at best.

BTW, the thing I'd be most worried about grade-wise is horizontal mark between the ear and the eye, and any contact marks/friction under they eye. Along with the big unknown given the scan -- the luster.

Enjoy the long weekend...Mike

p.s. please update this thread with your assessment of the coin in-hand and pictures!

 

Thanks, Mike, you too. I hear you on trying to grade and "compare" off scans, too, you bet. And I've got the times I've goofed up to prove it.

BTW, ditto on that p.s., rhoggman...let us know.

 

No problem leadfoot, but I promise you that this coin is a monster. It is by far the most impressive common date MS64* that I own and I own well over 20 of them. It is also the only one that I paid over $1,000. It is true that rainbow toned Morgans are very common. However, this is not one of the common ones. If you can find another 1883-O with toning of this magnitude for under $1,000, let me know and I will be happy to outbid you. The term monster is certainly applicable to this coin, but I understand that some may not find reverse toned Morgans particularly appealing. However, to describe this coin's toning as average to above average is ludicrous. The toning on the coin is undoubtedly exceptional. Good eye with recognizing Anaconda's photography BTW.

I don't consider your opinion ragging on my coin, I just tells me that you are not a collector of rainbow toned Morgans. I would guess that if I sold this coin at auction using Anaconda's photos, it would break the $1,000 barrier. I paid more because I love the coin and it called to me. There is very little chance that I could sell this coin for what I paid for it. But then again, I am a collector not an investor and have no intentions of selling one of my Morgan monsters anytime in the near future.

Paul

 

GD,

If you can't consider the possibility that what you are seeing in a crappy photo is toning rather than wear, when nobody else sees wear on this coin, including the 4 members of PCGS, then I can't help you. I also could not help you see why my MS68 was not infact an MS66 as you concluded, even with a very informative thread that won TOTW.

PCGS & NGC do make mistakes, no doubt. However, I feel confident that the graders at NGC are able to determine the difference between a weak strike Morgan and an AU Morgan. I can count the number of coins on one hand that I have seen over/undergrade by 3 or more points by either of these services. You have pointed out 2 severely overgraded NGC coins in one week. I don't think that is coincidental.

I will agree with your contradiction of an NGC/PCGS assigned grade only when you can point to specific and definitive reasons why their grade is wrong. In this case, what you are calling wear, could very easily be toning that looks like wear in a terrible photo. Furthermore, if you really think that you can accurately grade a coin from a photo as well as the professional graders who have the coin in hand, then you my friend are the one who will be making the big mistake.

 

GD , that's the best example & explanation of luster break I've seen . Also for why there is wear over her ear and nowhere else , could that wear be caused by friction rub by keeping it in a cabinet ?
rzage

 

Well.....

I hate to burst so many bubbles here, but this coin looks no where near as nice in hand as it does in the picture. I still think it is every bit of a MS64 Morgan, but the scans really distorted the true nature of the surfaces, especially the fields.

The the left of Liberty's head there is IMO unattractive milky toning that is not visible in the scans. The slight amber toning on the reverse is also "not really there" in the way it appears in the scans.

The weak strike on the obverse is still noticeable, but on the reverse where the eagle's breast looks very weak was actually an illusion of the scan. All of the feathers on the breast of the eagle are present, and defined.

When I fist saw the coin in hand I actually wondered weather it was the same coin, but after tilting it in the light I was able to find the faint mark to the left of Liberty's eye.

I am actually starting to think that DLRC's scans can be less than desirable when searching for a coin. I have had coins come in from them all across the board. Some looked identical in hand, while others were just way off. I have never been unhappy with what I received, but I am becoming more leery......

 

I'll say MS-64 atleast, MS-65 at the most (For me, and jmo, I think it's a sweet coin, nice! :thumb

Phoenix

 

Sorry to hear that rhoggman. Scans suck.

However if there's a silver lining here, you now know what to look for going forward. Over time, particularly for circulated coins, you can predict how the coin will look in-hand -- but it took several tries before I got a feel for it. I've always struggled, however, with lustrous mint state coins and DLRC scans.

Again, sorry...Mike