Is this an MS coin or is NGC that sloppy? (pic)

I recently snagged a Morgan on Ebay. Here's the pic, saved from the auction:



It is, in fact, in an NGC holder, graded MS64. However, note the wear around/above the ear in the pic. Further, there's virtually no breast detail left on the reverse. Since it's a slabbed coin from a reputable grader, I figured that photography or holder wear exaggerated the appearance but the coin is, in fact, that worn.

Is that something NGC would consider bag wear and still grade as MS? Or, how possible is it to break a holder and cleanly (well, almost...) reseal it with another coin?

I've already contacted NGC for an opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think it is MS64 with a very weak strike keeping it out of a 65 holder. The ear hair and breast feathers are only really fully defined on very well struck morgans. Most lack some definition. Ifit were a 62 you might have anargument since for every 58 in a 62 holder there is a 62 in a 58 holder. If you look at the rest of the coin, it is very sharp with no detracting marks.

 

The rest of the details are admittedly sharp. I'm a sucker for clean cheekbones and this one's got 'em.

Trouble is, the worn area on the obverse is of a notably different finish than the rest. The weak breast strike could be just that, as the finish matches, but the obverse looks like wear from some source.

How does NGC seal their slabs? Do they use acrylic cement? I note a couple spots on the edge of the slab where acrylic cement might have leaked. That's part of my paranoia.

 

I agree that it is just a week struck coin...at first I thought it mgiht be a grease filled die but I don't think so now...

From what I see in this photo I don't see the PL on the coin----but I guess it is there...do you have a photo of the back??

Speedy

 

I considered the "prooflike" stuff to be hyperbole, and didn't consider it when I decided what to bid.

Here's an '83O I see as a weak strike:



Above the ear and eyebrow are weak. Here's an '85 with a nice strike (this one's my avatar):



Here's the coin in question:




This coin is worn or otherwise flattened.

Reverse:



No real wear, just a weak strike. I'm mystified, beyond knowing that it's no MS64 in my book.

 

Nice coin...I would say it is because it is from the O mint and most of the O coins have a week strike...I see what they mean by PL a little but don't see it much.

the 1885 is not from the O mint...is it?
I would also guess that it is graded PL?

Speedy

 

The first pic is of an average strike at New Orleans. The coin is of a very weak strike. New Orleans minted morgans cannot be compared to other mints as far as strike goes. If you want great stike look at San Fran morgans. Checkout these pics comparing strike.

Strike Grading

 

The '85 is a Philadelphia coin, slabbed (NTC ) MS65DMPL. It's a genuine DMPL, reflects 8"+, but I dunno about 65.

Of course I can't call myself an expert by any means, but this is the worst strike I've seen grade that high. That's why I'm worried, so thanks for helping lift my spirits a little.

 

Also remember that strike is only one of many components used to grade and NGC uses at least three graders on each coin before it is assigned a grade then it goes to a finalizer who certifies the grade is accurate.

 

It's hard to tell from a photo. But, IMO It looks like a weak strike, but then sometimes looks like wear. I would have probably stayed away from this coin purchase since I'm not an expert in the higher MS grades, especially with weak strikes

 

I'm with you on this one Dave, as I don't happen to believe it's a 64 either. In fact, I would question if it was in fact a MS coin. If I were grading the coin it would be a nice AU58 and let it go at that. A dog is a dog, no matter where it was bread or who the kennel belonged to.

 

That flat spot about the ear is weak strike and it very common on O mint coins.
Seen that over and over. Don't expect the grading services to be consistent with that type of coin. I had an original roll of 21 peace dollars about 10 years ago, all with that typical high relief flatness in the center. Half the roll came back 62-63 and the other half came back 58...go figure. Wish I had that roll today!
Nick

 

NICE...the reason it doesn't look like a good strike is because of the marks on the face right?--I stil think its a nice MS coin...NTC does over grade coins every now and then---the reason for the marks on the face is where the coin is PL and the CAMEO on the face got nicked up from bag marks...

If you don't like week strikes I would suggest buying more coins that are not from the O mint--unless you can see it in person.

Speedy

 

Speedy, don't be so sure fired about not buying "O" marked coins. Not all of New Orleans coins were weak struck. I have proof of that, and they will compair with those of any of the other mints. So get down off the band wagon and stop giving out this type of information. PLease!1!

 

It is hard to make a call without seeing this coin in person, and without having a photo of the reverse, but I am inclined to agree with the grade assigned by NGC. This particular date, the 1902-O, is actually readily available with an average if somewhat weak strike and as such NGC has lowered the grade based on the VERY weak strike on this coin. Were it not for the strike, this would certainly (bearing in mind I am grading just based on the obverse here) make MS65.

 

I have seen proof too...BUT most of the O mint coins I have looked at are weak in the strike and most of the books and articles I have read also tend to say the same thing....I posted and said that I wouldn't buy any UNLESS I could see them in person...I for one doesn't buy many Morgan dollars...there are too many of them out there for me

Speedy

 

I would not say there common ( at least in my experance ) in the MS grade but here's a NGC MS63 exhibiting the same traits...

Evidently strike is only one of the categories they consider when grading a coin...

99% of the NGC MS63 and MS64's "O's" I have, have a nice to average strike...

As Dan says, can be as nice as any...

 

After reading all the posts and reviewing the pic, I agree it is a weak strike, not wear.

Imagine what the minting process involves - a flat planchet is struck if metal does not make it into the deepest areas of the die, it stays flat.

 

No question it has to do with the strike and is not ware...

Here's a quote from coingrading.com...

"There are several parts of the minting process that could account for the sharpness, or lack thereof, of a coin's strike. The most important aspect is striking pressure. Striking pressure can vary tremendously from coin to coin during the minting process. In fact, some mints (particularly New Orleans, Charlotte and Dahlonega) were usually allocated the poorer condition presses and dies. Therefore these mints tended to produce a worse than average coin in terms of strike. In addition, the sharpness of the die needs to be considered. This may vary due to wear on the die, or on the master die from which the die itself is made. Finally, the consistency and quality of the planchet can affect the quality of strike."

This would lead me to believe there could be a combination of factors that produced the two coins in question ( Pressure, Quality of Die, Quality of Planchet ) Say the Planchet was under weight and had average pressure, would that not produce this effect...?

Both dates are known for Soft to Average strikes according to coingrading.com. It will be interesting to see what NGC has to say, if or when they reply to SuperDave's inquiry ( Please post if they do ). Either way I would think NGC would ( should ) make some kind of notation on the slab since it clearly affects the value of the coin...