Since you said you don't think anyone will get it right, I'll guess that the "wear" on the obverse is a weak strike, that on the reverse is "bag friction", and the first photo does a spectacularly unflattering job of showing not-especially-beautiful-to-start-with toning. 64?
I think it's in an NGC fattie with the line in the insert. My guess is it's in an NGC MS-65 holder. The obverse looks worse than it really is due to the mottled nature of the toning. I think the surfaces are much cleaner than they appear.
Well I was wrong, I didn't think a single person would guess over AU58. @-jeffB got it right and a few of you were close. MS 64 I didn't even think about a week strike I just assumed that was a lot of wear. I was just flabbergasted it got MS.
Those New Orleans Morgan's are notorious for having weak strikes. How about this for a weak strike? It's an 1888-O graded MS-63.
I get that it's a weak strike but I feel even then this grade is high. In my mind a coins grade is representative of its amount of detail rather than wear. If that makes sense? Ha
Coins with such a weak strike shouldn’t get a gem BU grade, regardless of how clean the surfaces are and how nice the luster is. Note that I said “shouldn’t” lol
Again as before buy the coin not the slab. The images may be deceiving but to my eye from images provided it is an Au. Coin. I sure wouldn't pay 64 money for that specimen.
LOL, twice a day. Edit: actually, I'd love for anyone to check my work -- the reverse fields looked very clean, and I didn't see any significant hits anywhere, but that blotchy obverse and weak strike made me think nobody would ever promote this to "gem" (65). Was this reasoning, well, reasonable, or was this just blind luck?
