Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Morgandude11, post: 7723206, member: 37839&quot;]This is really one of the main reasons that I sold both of my 1893s coins.&nbsp; First, I sold my XF 45 to upgrade to an AU 50.&nbsp; In all honesty, having completed the 97 coin&nbsp; regular strikes of the Morgan series, I took a really good look at a couple of the dates.&nbsp; I objectively looked at the AU 50 1893s, and asked myself, “would you have bought this coin, if it were not an 1893s?”&nbsp; The answer was a loud and resounding “NO!”</p><p>Most key date Morgan coins that are not 6 figures, or at least very high 5 figures are, ahem—ugly. My erstwhile 1893s has been posted here before, and I would think others would agree, looking objectively, and not with the lust a key coin generates.&nbsp; No way it would have received that grade if it were an 1899 or a 1902 o.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, I sold it for just under $22,000, and have had fun buying coins that I really like—other series, and gem grade cc Morgans, and ultra gem common date Morgans.&nbsp; Technically, they are rarer than the 93s—a MS 67 common date Morgan can be had for $1200–$5000 or less, and has a population of a few hundred.&nbsp; After all those purchases, I still have $10,000 left, and frankly, I feel good about it.&nbsp; I don’t miss my fugly, overgraded, overpriced 93s.&nbsp; The next coin to go will be my 1889cc.&nbsp; Same thing—it is overgraded to make an AU 50, and not special.&nbsp; I would rather have “uncommon” common date Morgans, seated coinage, Liberty Nickel proofs, and other more attractive coins in high grade, than one, beat up, key date Morgan.&nbsp; Just my two cents about the aesthetics of market grading.[/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