Help grade this Morgan

I know this is a common date, and I got it cheaply, but I have zero expierence in grading coins. All I can tell is it is mint state and has not been cleaned. The photo does not do it justice. My guess is MS62. Am I high or low?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

AU 55

Very nice coin

Ruben

 

I'd say AU-53-55 , you should get a copy of ANA Grading Standards , 6th Edition . You can see slight wear on the eagles breast , and Libertys' hair and cheek , still a nice coin .
rzage

 

It would help if you had a better picture. But from what I can see, I agree with Ruben and rzage.

 

Thanks for the help. Now I am confused and embarrassed. i thought I had a "diamond in the rought" only to discover all I have is a "rought diamond"

Can an uncirculated coin be graded AU? I looked at the coin very closely after reading your comments. I can see where the reverse is weakly struck at the breast feathers and combined with a less than perfect photo would look like wear, but other than bag and contact marks I can see no wear on the coin. I can easily see the marks on the face of the coin, as almost all will have except the very high MS.

I tried to compare it with the photos and discriptions in PhotoGrade. I guess I will have to go to a dealer and compare it side by side with a slabbed MS+ coin to see what the difference is.

Glad to have you experts on board to keep me out of trouble.

 

Check the breast feathers on the eagle Son. They look worn to me and not weakly struck. Hence the AU designation...

 

No you have a diamond, a great coin. However for that Mint that is typical AU 55. An MS would be shaper in the breast for that year and mint....forgetting anything else.

Ruben

 

An AU coin is just that: Almost Uncirculated. It is not an uncirculated coin. Still, she is rather nice looking. The difference between Au and Unc. can at times be very slight indeed. The only time it comes to be a real bone of contention is if you pay MS prices for an AU coin...then, ouch, that hurts.

 

AU coins often look better than MS coins...

Ruben

 

Never feel embarressed over the grading of a coin , yes in fact it could be a bad photo that makes it look worn , but in your case I don't think so , the idea you have to compare it side by side to other MS coins is the only real way to learn to grade and a great idea . Also the pics in photograde are terrible , they are there to get you in the ballpark , the text is what you grade by , not the pics .
rzage

 

The coin looks cleaned. I can't really tell from the photo whether or not it is AU or MS.

 

AU64 Sliders, I agree completely!

 

the strike can be very good and the coin can have almost no bag marks but a touch of wear.

Ruben

 

Like rzage said, don't feel embarressed. Posting pics like this might help you learn to grade better. There are many factors that come into play here. For example, if this coin had been minted in New Orleans, I might have to think twice about the wear as O-minted Morgans are often weakly struck. Philly minted coins, usually, are struck better.

 

Absolutely. Or you can have a coin with absolutely no wear and tons of bag marks. AU coins often have better eye appeal than unc ones.

 

and eye appeal is what I'm paying for..

 

this is 100% correct...

 

I think part of the problem here is the pics. I really can't look at that coin and say for sure the lack of detail on the breast feathers is due to a poor strike or wear. What I look for is a little color change to illustrate a break in the luster on the high points. These pictures aren't good enough for me to do that. Based on the date, I would assume it's wear because I have seen some decently struck 1886 Morgan's, but I honestly can't tell for sure with the pics.

 

In this case because of the year and mint you know ....

Ruben

 

The 1886 isn't renowned as a fantastic strike like the 1881-S is. Like most Philadelphia Morgan issues, they typically have nice strikes but not always. I have seen some that had less than spectacular strikes...probably produced towards the end of that year's production. I'm not saying it's not wear (because it probably is), but based on the pics...I can't say for sure.