GTG - 1889 - O Morgan

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Scott J, May 25, 2021.

?

GTG

  1. AU 55

    2 vote(s)
    9.1%
  2. AU 58

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  3. MS 60

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. MS 61

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. MS 62

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. MS 63

    10 vote(s)
    45.5%
  7. MS 64

    9 vote(s)
    40.9%
  8. MS 65

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Other

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Scott J

    Scott J Well-Known Member

    Anyone up for another? EDIT 1899
    SmartSelect_20210525-201741_Chrome.jpg SmartSelect_20210525-201813_Chrome.jpg 20210523_094501.jpg 20210523_094642.jpg
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2021
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. COOPER12

    COOPER12 Well-Known Member

    Ill say AU-58
     
    Scott J likes this.
  4. potty dollar 1878

    potty dollar 1878 Well-Known Member

    I'll go 63+ now with the better pictures.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2021
    Scott J likes this.
  5. Mac McDonald

    Mac McDonald Well-Known Member

    Just clarifying it's 1899, not 89...but so hard to see through all the obverse toning by way of photos. Obv looks pretty beat up, but could be the toning. The reverse is solid 64...maybe even 65, but will go 63 overall. Not a tone fan to such a wild rainbow extent.
     
    Mountain Man and Scott J like this.
  6. Scott J

    Scott J Well-Known Member

    Yes, 1899. I didn't notice the typo, I don't think I can edit the title. The toning does make it tough, but the reverse is fairly clean.
     
  7. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

    Just under your poll on the right side it reads in black Thread Tools with a drop down box. Click that to edit the title but it’s to late now.

    I think she’s a MS-64.
     
    Scott J likes this.
  8. longshot

    longshot Enthusiast Supporter

    Guessing 63
     
    Scott J likes this.
  9. Scott J

    Scott J Well-Known Member

    Yes, too late, but thanks. Good to know for future reference.
     
    Collecting Nut likes this.
  10. SensibleSal66

    SensibleSal66 U.S Casual Collector / Error Collector

  11. thomas mozzillo

    thomas mozzillo Well-Known Member

  12. Hookman

    Hookman Well-Known Member

    58 for me.
     
    Scott J likes this.
  13. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

  14. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    64. The reverse is very strong. It is 65 ish. The obverse has the crusty toning that does not photograph well. Since the toning is not an asset, I would lightly dip the coin.
     
    Scott J likes this.
  15. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

    You’re new and it takes time to learn this site but it’s a great one with wonderful members that truly want to help others and guide them into the right areas.

    I knew it would be too late but know you know for next time. You can edit your post title just as you can your post but there is a time limit.
     
    Scott J likes this.
  16. Antonius Britannia

    Antonius Britannia Well-Known Member

  17. Beefer518

    Beefer518 Well-Known Member

  18. Anthony Mazza

    Anthony Mazza Well-Known Member

  19. Scott J

    Scott J Well-Known Member

    Thanks to everyone who participated.
    SmartSelect_20210528-072241_Chrome.jpg
     
    longshot likes this.
  20. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    Looks like I just missed this one. My thought was MS64...so off by 1. Makes me think the toning is masking some hits.
     
    Scott J likes this.
  21. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    Toning is not an asset on this coin, as it is unattractive.
     
    Hookman, Mountain Man and Scott J like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page