The Official Morgan Silver Dollar Thread

From The ANA Grading Standards Book:

MS-65: CONTACT MARKS....Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas..... HAIRLINES....may have a few scattered....LUSTER.....fully original......EYE APPEAL.....very pleasing

MS-64: CONTACT MARKS....May have light, scattered marks; a few may be in prime focal areas........HAIRLINES.....May have a few scattered or small patch in secondary areas.... LUSTER....Average/Fully Original.....EYE APPEAL.....Pleasing

Now, for the MINT STATE commentary section, there is no additional info for MS-64 but we have for MS-65 and MS-63; maybe we 'interpolate' for an MS-64:

MS-65: No trace of wear....nearly as perfect as MS-67 except for a few additional minute bagmarks or surface mars. Has full mint luster but may be unevenly toned. Any unusual striking traits must be described.

MS-63: A Mint State coin with attractive mint luster, but noticeable detracting contact marks or minor blemishes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Those are normal, high quality photographs of an actual coin. It is not shot so as to artificially enhance it. One can see clearly from those photographs that it has the look of a high gem grade coin, with no artistic license or enhancements, so to speak. That coin advertises itself, without the need of faked cameo photographs. I've seen it all in my years of Morgan collecting--so many ways of artificial ways to make a coin look good.

 

That is exactly what he is doing-- it makes a likely dipped bullion valued Morgan look like a high end gem.

 

What did you think of my Morgan photos -- just regular default shots with my Galaxy S4 (on a table)? I need to get them clearer -- I had the anti-shake thing on, and they still look a bit blurry (well, the reverse does). I don't have a tripod for the S4 and even bracing the camera on the table didn't solve all the problems.

 

For cell phone shots, they were quite good. Resolution isn't what it would be with a high quality camera, but they are nice, HONEST shots. The only way to get honest shots that give grading information in them is to shoot straight on, without artificially boosting the brightness and contrast. Those are honest photos. Good light, without doing the Great Southern Coins trick lighting, and one can actually grade a coin from shots like that.

 

I think they are pretty decent. Not bad at all for a phone image. The quality is much better than some that I have seen on here.

 

The brighter your light the less blurring you will get. If you can't get a brighter light, then get closer to it, it will give the same effect as a brighter light. Brighter light gives a faster shutter speed, so less chance at blur caused by movement during exposure.

 

No wonder you know about photography !

 

OK this is weird....another 1879-S Reverse of '78....but this one graded sequentially with the other one (check the serial numbers) !! Different owner/seller....same characteristics, though this guy says his coin has Cameo/PL/DMPL qualities (but PCGS says it does NOT !!).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1879-S-Reve...5141eee&pid=100011&rk=3&rkt=7&sd=391391975786

(1) Thoughts on this coin ?

(2) How would you bid if you were interested in it ? Same qualities on the label....coin looks a LITTLE better than the other one, but asking price is over 60% higher. Where would you make your offer ? $705, the one sold a day or so earlier ? Split the difference ?

 

I would not bid. It is not that attractive a coin for that price, and is astronomically overpriced. I would pass.

 

Oh, I'm not bidding...just wanted you guys feedback.

I've never seen 2 coins sequentially graded that are the same grade and type...must be from the same original collection.

 

I think you nailed it. I would guess it was submitted together, and graded one after the other--I've seen that a few times on big collections, or large dealer submissions.

 

So, post the pictures already. You own the coin!!

 

No, I bought the 1884-0 DMPL....will take pics when I get it....you are referencing the two 1879-S Reverse coins.

Oh...I guess I can use the photos that were originally with the 1884-O...thought you guys wanted to see new ones.

 

Cameo DPL? Who says? The seller?

If I was to go for a coin like those, I would want that attributed by the TPG. Try to sell it later and what you have is an MS63. Period.

 

Agreed....you must be referencing a coin I posted a few pages back where the seller's description said PL or DPL/Cameo but the TPG label did NOT.

My coin I just bought I will post pics later....1884-0 DMPL. I had it on my list, but MD vouched for it so I have to give him credit.

 

Use the seller's pix until it comes.

 

My Newest Addition: Just picked this up after putting it in my Watch List and then hearing from MD. A great example of how at this forum we can help one another.

 

As I said to you in private, it is a tremendous eye appeal coin. Even the seller's below par pictures can't hide what is a stunning coin. It is extremely high in grade-- so close to 65 that you can almost feel it. The mirrors look amazing. There is tons of cameo, and frost. Very few of the distracting striations, die polish marks, and gratuitous bag marks. Strike is fabulous for a New Orleans coin, and overall appeal verges on gold bean, rather than green. Add an OGH, and this is one hell of a DMPL. Great price, too, Frank. Couldn't have done it better myself.

 

That is a gorgeous Morgan. Congrats to the new owner!