What is your grade guess for this coin?

[MarkFeld]

 

 

Based on the images provided, how would you grade this coin?

 

 

[Coindude]

I would say it depends on the luster. The Obverse is near flawless the reverse has a 65 look to it. I would say 66+.

[physics-fan3.14]

The patch on her cheek keeps it at 66 for me.

[Mark T]

I don’t see this less than a 66 . I assume what looks to be scratches on the cheek is on the slab.

[wdrob]

Nearly clear of any marks in the fields and the devices and what is being seen is probably so insignificant in hand, compared to being enlarged x25, that they are inconsequential, imo.

 

The luster is clearly evident in this picture to be 'all there' but I do not sense any PL quality to it in it's depth. To me the reverse is more closely a MS66 than a MS65 so for those reasons I will guess -

 

MS67

 

 

 

[Walkerfan]

I'd grade it MS 65 due to some light marks on the cheek and on the reverse.

[furham-migration]

I'm gonna say MS66. Beautiful coin.

[coinman_23885]

67 shot 67+

 

Edited: I wouldn't be surprised by a plus designation. For me, I like it as a normal MS67 grade with the reverse marks holding it back from the plus.

[Colorado68]

It's a beautiful coin.

I keep looking for the luster or frost and see rub on the high points. The chin, nose and neck area look like it might have been lightly cleaned.

I'm new at this and probably way off but I'll take a guess the obverse was whizzed

[coinman_23885]

I assume what looks to be scratches on the cheek is on the slab.

 

It looks like it is to me.

[coinman_23885]

It's a beautiful coin.

I keep looking for the luster or frost and see rub on the high points. The chin, nose and neck area look like it might have been lightly cleaned.

I'm new at this and probably way off but I'll take a guess the obverse was whizzed

 

Whizzing would destroy the original luster, and the mint luster appears to be just fine. I also don't see any impaired luster and/or hairlines that I would associate with cleaning. Are you seeing something that I am missing?

[brg5658]

I would say at least 66, with a decent shot at 67.

[MarkFeld]

I don't know the assigned grade of the coin, but it looks like a 67 to me. And I didn't even consider a grade below 66.

 

I saw it posted on another forum and was stunned by many of the grade guesses, one or more of which were as low as AU58.

[Deerefan8420]

I don't know the assigned grade of the coin, but it looks like a 67 to me. And I didn't even consider a grade below 66.

 

I saw it posted on another forum and was stunned by many of the grade guesses, one or more of which were as low as AU58.

 

I also saw this coin on the other forum and did not want to comment on the grade here. I was also surprised by the grade guesses. I was even more surprised at the grade it was given(the poster revealed the grade later in the thread).

[coinman_23885]

I don't know the assigned grade of the coin, but it looks like a 67 to me. And I didn't even consider a grade below 66.

 

I saw it posted on another forum and was stunned by many of the grade guesses, one or more of which were as low as AU58.

 

I also saw this coin on the other forum and did not want to comment on the grade here. I was also surprised by the grade guesses. I was even more surprised at the grade it was given(the poster revealed the grade later in the thread).

 

Link?

[coinman_23885]

I don't know the assigned grade of the coin, but it looks like a 67 to me. And I didn't even consider a grade below 66.

 

I saw it posted on another forum and was stunned by many of the grade guesses, one or more of which were as low as AU58.

 

I copied the URL that you posted and did a reverse image search in Google. There is another photo of this coin that shows more marks on the reverse; thus, it appears that the photography is hiding some marks.

 

 

Here is the site if you are interested in the PCGS grade:

 

http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=195877&whichpage=2

 

(Identical images are posted on page 1, matching it to URL hosting the image you posted).

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I don't know the assigned grade of the coin, but it looks like a 67 to me. And I didn't even consider a grade below 66.

 

I saw it posted on another forum and was stunned by many of the grade guesses, one or more of which were as low as AU58.

 

I copied the URL that you posted and did a reverse image search in Google. There is another photo of this coin that shows more marks on the reverse; thus, it appears that the photography is hiding some marks.

Here is the site if you are interested in the PCGS grade:

 

http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=195877&whichpage=2

 

(Identical images are posted on page 1, matching it to URL hosting the image you posted).

 

Very interesting. The pictures on that page show a coin that appears to be an accurately graded 65 (although a strong 65). The pictures posted here show the coin in a much better light, leading to 66-67 guesses. Funny how that works.

 

And whoever guessed AU-58 clearly has no idea what a gem Morgan looks like.

[MarkFeld]

Here is the other thread.

 

There were three different AU58 guesses and two or three MS64 guesses.

[Mark T]

Here is the other thread.

 

There were three different AU58 guesses and two or three MS64 guesses.

 

And then there was the guy who called it cleaned - details .

[coinman_23885]

Here is the other thread.

 

There were three different AU58 guesses and two or three MS64 guesses.

 

Thanks! And there are a lot of people who posted on that thread that are completely clueless when it comes to grading this series. While the circulated grades were obviously crazy, I was stunned by the two that said it wouldn't straight grade (one as cleaned and the other as "PVC").

[johnny9434]

ill go ms 65 because of some of the marks on the reverse. jmo

[jom]

I would have said 65 due to that cheek but I tend to under-grade. I know it's a rather simple coin to grade but I just don't look at enough of these to know what the TPGs do with that kind of "issue" on the cheek. Maybe it's not as much of an issue when you see it in hand. If not, then 66 I suppose.

 

jom

[coinman_23885]

I would have said 65 due to that cheek but I tend to under-grade. I know it's a rather simple coin to grade but I just don't look at enough of these to know what the TPGs do with that kind of "issue" on the cheek. Maybe it's not as much of an issue when you see it in hand. If not, then 66 I suppose.

 

jom

 

Are you talking about the cluster of lines just above the neck line? I believe those are from scuffs on the slab.

[physics-fan3.14]

I would have said 65 due to that cheek but I tend to under-grade. I know it's a rather simple coin to grade but I just don't look at enough of these to know what the TPGs do with that kind of "issue" on the cheek. Maybe it's not as much of an issue when you see it in hand. If not, then 66 I suppose.

 

jom

 

Are you talking about the cluster of lines just above the neck line? I believe those are from scuffs on the slab.

 

I think they look like roller marks from a weak strike. These are fairly common, and could be one reason why the coin is a 65.

[coinman_23885]

Are you talking about the cluster of lines just above the neck line? I believe those are from scuffs on the slab.

 

I think they look like roller marks from a weak strike. These are fairly common, and could be one reason why the coin is a 65.

 

If so, the marks should not affect the technical grade and I have seen them on coins grading as high as MS67. Given the minor nature, I also don't think it should have that profound of an effect on the market grade (although I would agree that significantly detracting roller marks do affect value). I think the other marks that show in the slab shots (but not the initial images) are the culprit of why it ended up in a 65 holder.

[Colorado68]

It's a beautiful coin.

I keep looking for the luster or frost and see rub on the high points. The chin, nose and neck area look like it might have been lightly cleaned.

I'm new at this and probably way off but I'll take a guess the obverse was whizzed

 

Whizzing would destroy the original luster, and the mint luster appears to be just fine. I also don't see any impaired luster and/or hairlines that I would associate with cleaning. Are you seeing something that I am missing?

 

You're not missing anything. I'm the one who was way off with that whizzed comment.

I was focused on what look like tiny bumps on the chin, neck and nose area. Also the minute lines on the cheek.

New at trying to determine grades so my guesses are just a learning tool for me.

[Raisethis2]

The coin has obvious discoloration on the cheek and has a series of lines running parallel to one another from northwest to southeast. Where some have guessed the lines to be scuffs on the holder I interpreted them to be on the coin.

 

If they're on the coin, a details - "cleaned" conclusion is not far fetched. Since the poster didn't clarify them as being scuffs on the slab (and if they were he was too lazy to polish them out), that's a coin I pass on in an online auction.

 

 

[jpcienkus]

I didn't click on the link provided, but I assume the coin graded 65 based on the Jason's post.

 

I would have thought 66. I don't like seeing those roller marks on the jaw/lower chin area, but they are quite common and I've seen them on the occasional 67. I think the obverse is nicer than the reverse. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reverse shouldn't hold this coin back 1 full point.

 

You can see some kind of spotting from an improper rinse on the reverse as well.

[Danye West]

The cheek looks a bit weird. I will say MS65 if not UNC Details.

[Hack]

I would guess the coin is: UNC DETAILS OBV IMPROPERLY CLEANED as I have a 1878 S Morgan that has the same scratch marks on the lower cheek that NGC graded UNC DETAILS.