Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;maulwoof, post: 846794, member: 24347&quot;]Keep in mind grading is subjective, especially w/o a magnifying glass. The grading services use up to 60x power microscopes to see individual nuances on both sides and they don&#039;t always please every eye that looks.</p><p>Having said that, and with the limited pic quality, although not bad, I would give my 2 cents as...</p><p><i>1882s</i>- No real significant wear on the reverse breast feathers or wings and tips, full obverse LIBERTY and nearly clean lines, slight wear on rims both sides, minor bagmarks in fields. Luster is always a part of the grade and cannot see from the pics, so <u>ballpark</u> -- AU50-55 (+/- 5 pts)</p><p><i>1889O</i>- Visible wear at ear and hairline above, obverse/reverse rim wear, dings and flattening, some interesting stuff going on reverse @top of letters U,N,I, visible rim dings, wing feather abrasions &amp; breast feather wear, arrow tips not sharp (common for New Orleans mint, known for soft or weaker strikes -- AU50&nbsp; (+/- 5 pts) - <u>ballpark</u></p><p><i>1889P</i>- Visible wear hairlines and ear, obverse/reverse rim wear w/small dings/dents, wear on reverse breast feathers, wing feathers &amp; tips w/noticeable&nbsp; horizontal abrasions across both wings -- XF45 - AU50 <u>ballpark</u></p><p><br /></p><p>Original luster would add to these morgans, but I cannot see from the pics, the fields look pretty clean. A range of 5 or 6 pts on any subjective eye grading is good to keep in mind, and many others will see them different than I.</p><p><br /></p><p>Most of us a are little reluctant to grade due to the subjective nature, pic quality, and different eye appeal from one person to the next[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in