GTG 1884-O Morgan Dollar

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by LuxUnit, May 3, 2019.

  1. LuxUnit

    LuxUnit Well-Known Member

    Sorry for the weird lighting, took it on the road.

    inCollage_20190503_142855412.jpg

    Better image.
    inCollage_20190503_170324806.jpg
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Noah Finney

    Noah Finney Well-Known Member

    Nice coin!
    MS-63 PL
     
    LuxUnit likes this.
  4. johnmilton

    johnmilton Well-Known Member

    It's a tough call because of the lighting. The number marks suggests MS-63 or 64, but the luster looks to be impaired, which might be due the lighting. I don't see a P-L here at all. There is too much frost in the fields.
     
    LuxUnit likes this.
  5. longshot

    longshot Enthusiast Supporter

    64, if it wasn't overdipped. Surfaces look a bit off.

    Is it slabbed?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
    LuxUnit likes this.
  6. LuxUnit

    LuxUnit Well-Known Member

    Updated the post with better images!
     
  7. LuxUnit

    LuxUnit Well-Known Member

    Yes. Pcgs
     
    longshot likes this.
  8. furham

    furham Good Ole Boy

    MS 64.
     
    LuxUnit likes this.
  9. LuxUnit

    LuxUnit Well-Known Member

    I posted updated pictures if you're interested
     
    Noah Finney likes this.
  10. johnmilton

    johnmilton Well-Known Member

    MS-64, but it’s not choice because it had lost something from having been dipped.
     
    LuxUnit likes this.
  11. ddoomm1

    ddoomm1 keep on running

    MS-64 (PL?)
     
    LuxUnit likes this.
  12. ddddd

    ddddd Member

    MS 64
     
    LuxUnit likes this.
  13. Dave Waterstraat

    Dave Waterstraat Well-Known Member

    MS64, if it were an older holder when PL grades were a bit looser I would say possible PL but since it's a newer generation slab I'll say not.
     
    LuxUnit likes this.
  14. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    I’m at 64 as well and looks dipped. Though the luster may be better in hand
     
    LuxUnit likes this.
  15. LuxUnit

    LuxUnit Well-Known Member

    And the result!
    IMG_20190504_183950.jpg IMG_20190504_183954.jpg
    Don't know why but that's ok with me, very reflective fields and good amount of luster. The reverse is more clean than some 64s I have!

    Here it is next to a 80-S in MS 64:
    15570138000902851652702430232544.jpg
    15570135384514151848282292522859.jpg
     
    genXmetalfan, Two Dogs and CircCam like this.
  16. micbraun

    micbraun coindiccted

    You can’t compare your New Orleans Morgan dollar to one which was struck in SF a couple of years earlier.

    If you simply look at the hits, you may be thinking “this MS62 looks much better than the 64”. If you look at the originality of the surfaces, you may come to a different conclusion.

    I admit though in the last picture the coin appears to be very nice for a 62.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2019
  17. LuxUnit

    LuxUnit Well-Known Member

    There's just a bias because my first photos are so bad. I took those in a moving vehicle using sunlight and my phone. The first time this coin was posted by the original owner everyone agreed it was undergraded and dipping was not mentioned once.
     
  18. Dave Waterstraat

    Dave Waterstraat Well-Known Member

    It does appear to be a bit of a conservative grade. I guess the graders saw something that we're not in the images....
     
    LuxUnit and coinsareus10 like this.
  19. Lembeck13

    Lembeck13 Active Member

    Lighting and slabbing notwithstanding... You done good, son! PCGS? Not so good.
     
    genXmetalfan and LuxUnit like this.
  20. Mike Thorne

    Mike Thorne Well-Known Member

    I was going to guess 61, but I'll change my guess to 62.
     
  21. LuxUnit

    LuxUnit Well-Known Member

    You're the first person in either GTG threads to guess 61 or 62. What was your reasoning. You must be seeing something we are not...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page