Just came across this 1888-O Morgan. I bought it on ebay with a 7-day return, and I would like some opinions on whether this is MS or not. When I first looked at it, I thought it had obvious wear, but I looked up this year in the VAM book and it stated this is weakly struck (with some flat strikes seen). I looked at a PCGS 1901-o that I have (graded ms65) and I noticed it too had a not so good strike (especially on the eagle's breast). I brought this to my local dealer and he said he couldn't tell. He thought that if it were to be submitted, on some days it would grade AU, others MS. So, I'd like some opinions on this. Thanks in advance.
Yes, the 1888-O is notorious for their weak strikes! After taking in the account of a weak strike, I believe that it may receive an MS-61 to MS-62 grade but might have received a better grade if it were not for all of the rim nicks and roughness. It appears that the coins has several Die Cracks on the Reverse which would make it a VAM (if there is already a VAM designation number for it, I do not know what it is!). One Die Crack appears to run from the Eagle's right wing through the first "S" in STATES and another one runs from the "F" in OF through the Eagle's left wing and through the top of the "A" and "M" in AMERICA. Also, is that doubling on "E PLURIBUS UNUM"? Frank
I missed the die breaks before, thank you for pointing them out. I have the VAM encyclopedia, but I don't see any mention of this for the 88-o. Here is a closeup of the obverse motto. I cannot tell if it's doubled, but if it is, it's only lightly. However, thank you again for pointing that out!
What appeared to be doubling in the first set of pics, apparently was an effect of the lighting! I have the seen the same to be true when searching coins for errors. What appears to be doubling in a bad lighting situation, turns out to be nothing at all in the correct lighting. You might be able to identify the VAM by searching the Web! However, it could be an unlisted VAM which you need to send to Leroy Van Allen to receive credit for the find and to get it assigned a VAM designation number. I have quite a few VAM's that I have been able to identify by searching the Web and quite a few others that I have not been able to identify. I just haven't been able to stomach the cost for all of the VAM books and the updates and for the time being will rely on searching the web. Good luck...Frank
I would guess MS61, but it does seem borderline, with just the pictures to look at. Minimal wear is easier to detect by moving the coin under incandescent light to see breaks in the luster.
Call me crazy, but there does appear to be some light circulation wear on the reverse. A weak strike it certainly is, but it appears also to be circulated. I'd say AU-58 as well from those pics. Fish
I'd agree with what your dealer said sf340flier. I'm not a very good grader though. I have a related question though. I've heard alot about O-morgans being weakly struck....Are all O-mint morgans like that? Or are particular ones, like the 88 worse? I have a 99-O, which I think looks great. I'd like to post pics, but I'm no good at coin photography.
Adam, The VAM book lists the 99-o as being well struck, but with some weak strike examples floating around simply because there was a large mintage. While O Morgans were generally not very well struck, there are some exceptions (like the 99-o)! Jim
