1896-o Morgan. Any worth here? Thanks.

[Travis Hale]

[Travis Hale]

[Alex in PA.]

To us Morgan dollar collectors; they all have value.  Resale value depends on the eye appeal and the grade of the coin.  perhaps the folks here can give you an estimated grade.

[Travis Hale]

That’s exactly what I meant,  because of its very pricy history is why I was asking. The Morgan Dollar is by far my favorite. I’ll show you one that I’ve had a while that’s beautiful....

[Alex in PA.]

Very nice indeed,  I like the blue shadows.  Thanks for posting it.  Also, this might be of interest to you:

https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/how-to-grade-morgan-dollars-768394

 

[MarkFeld]

Have you formed an opinion of the grade of the 1896-O and looked up corresponding values?

[Travis Hale]

Not yet, because it really takes a lot to grade New Orleans coins & they’re handled differently in grading as well. I am going to send it in though for sure...

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, Travis Hale said:

Not yet, because it really takes a lot to grade New Orleans coins & they’re handled differently in grading as well. I am going to send it in though for sure...

I wouldn’t apply any different grading standard to the coin. You should look at on-line images of coins of that date/mint and try to get a feel as to how yours might grade. There are plenty of examples to view.

Keep in mind that it might receive a details grade as it appears that the obverse might be damaged.

[Mohawk]

10 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I wouldn’t apply any different grading standard to the coin.

Same here.  A Morgan is a Morgan.  Even though New Orleans coins are often weakly struck, they aren't allowed leeway for it when grading properly.  A weak strike impacts any coin in a series the same way, regardless of mint.  For example, I collect early East German coins and from 1949 to 1953, East Germany struck coins at two mints; Berlin and Muldenhutten.  Of these two, Muldenhutten coins typically have much more subdued luster and weaker strikes than Berlin coins, but they are graded exactly the same way.  Collectors of this coinage know that you often have to settle a bit regarding strike and, particularly, luster on Muldenhutten coins and but that doesn't mean we grade them differently than those struck in Berlin.  Mostly what it means is that your Muldenhutten coins are typically in lower grades than your Berlin pieces because those are the grades in which the coins are available due to how they were manufactured.  For you Morgan guys, New Orleans is your Muldenhutten.

[Travis Hale]

I’m sorry guys, if you read the grading standards which change all the time, it’s true....

[Mohawk]

1 hour ago, Travis Hale said:

I’m sorry guys, if you read the grading standards which change all the time, it’s true....

Believe it or not, I read the grading standards in Dave Bowers' book on Morgan Dollars when I worked at a coin shop which sold Morgans.  I needed to be able to grade them for my job, so believe me, I learned.  Nowhere did I read anything like what you are suggesting as a grading standard.  Yes, it is acknowledged that New Orleans Mint Morgans are often weakly struck but it has never been suggested anywhere in acceptable numismatic literature that you should apply different grading standards to them than you would for Morgans from other mints.  That is completely incorrect and it is dangerous misinformation.  Where, may I ask, did you read this?

[MarkFeld]

2 minutes ago, Mohawk said:

Believe it or not, I read the grading standards in Dave Bowers' book on Morgan Dollars when I worked at a coin shop which sold Morgans.  I needed to be able to grade them for my job, so believe me, I learned.  Nowhere did I read anything like what you are suggesting as a grading standard.  Yes, it is acknowledged that New Orleans Mint Morgans are often weakly struck, it has never been suggested anywhere in acceptable numismatic literature that you should apply different grading standards to them than you would for Morgans from other mints.  That is completely incorrect and it is dangerous misinformation.  Where, may I ask, did you read this?

Even if different standards were to be applied, it would make little or no difference in the case of circulated examples, such as the one in this thread.

[Mohawk]

Just now, MarkFeld said:

Even if different standards were to be applied, it would make little or no difference in the case of circulated examples, such as the one in this thread.

And that is a good point also Mark.  It wouldn't.  I didn't think of that because I was honestly flabbergasted by the OPs statement regarding the grading standards of New Orleans Morgan Dollars.......if not properly addressed, that could become some dangerous misinformation for many of the newbies who come here looking for good information.

[coinsandmedals]

9 minutes ago, Mohawk said:

Believe it or not, I read the grading standards in Dave Bowers' book on Morgan Dollars when I worked at a coin shop which sold Morgans.  I needed to be able to grade them for my job, so believe me, I learned.  Nowhere did I read anything like what you are suggesting as a grading standard.  Yes, it is acknowledged that New Orleans Mint Morgans are often weakly struck, it has never been suggested anywhere in acceptable numismatic literature that you should apply different grading standards to them than you would for Morgans from other mints.  That is completely incorrect and it is dangerous misinformation.  Where, may I ask, did you read this?

I am in the same boat as Mohawk. He brings up a very valid point with the East German coins. A similar situation can be found in William III copper coinage. The entire series is plagued with poor planchet quality, weak strikes, and various other issues. Despite these issues, they are still graded using conventional grading methods. The entire point of attempting to use standardized grading scales is to remove subjectivity. Placing different coins on different scales as you suggest with New Orleans Morgan dollars would defeat the entire purpose. This does not mean that collectors do not take these factors into consideration when collecting them. I often weigh these factors carefully when deciding to purchase any William III copper piece, but the technical grade is unaffected. I too would like to know where you found this "Information". 

[Travis Hale]

It actually is very prevalent in our own country, especially during & after the civil war. Also minting standards evolving. Based on certain variables & quality the standards of grading for these coins have to be changed. Plus, factor in collectors of variations & errors. Grading is much more complex as a whole to the collector community based on so many factors. The graders, the mints, & the market collectors all play a factor in this evaluation.

[Mohawk]

12 minutes ago, Travis Hale said:

It actually is very prevalent in our own country, especially during & after the civil war. Also minting standards evolving. Based on certain variables & quality the standards of grading for these coins have to be changed. Plus, factor in collectors of variations & errors. Grading is much more complex as a whole to the collector community based on so many factors. The graders, the mints, & the market collectors all play a factor in this evaluation.

None of this is even close to correct Travis.....that's what we're trying to tell you.  The mints and the market should play no role whatsoever in grading a coin accurately.  Different graders may grade a coin differently, but those are based on differing eyes and differing interpretations of the same grading standards.  These standards are largely based on physical aspects of the coin in question.....things like strike, luster, wear, if there is any and any marks or other defects.  Where the coin was made and the market for the coin have nothing to do with accurate grading at all.  The standards haven't changed in a long time, aside from the more precise breaking down of MS grades that has been caused by the advent of Third-Party Grading.  If you look at a Photograde book from the 1970's (I have one) and look at the currently accepted standards of today in any reputable numismatic source they are the same aside from the aforementioned breakdown of MS grades.  If you want to do coins seriously and without losing a ton of money, you'll need accurate information on grading standards to even have a chance of learning how to grade properly.  Grading standards typically aren't as complex as you're making them out to be and your statements regarding them are not accurate.

[Mohawk]

14 hours ago, coinsandmedals said:

I am in the same boat as Mohawk. He brings up a very valid point with the East German coins. A similar situation can be found in William III copper coinage. The entire series is plagued with poor planchet quality, weak strikes, and various other issues. Despite these issues, they are still graded using conventional grading methods. The entire point of attempting to use standardized grading scales is to remove subjectivity. Placing different coins on different scales as you suggest with New Orleans Morgan dollars would defeat the entire purpose. This does not mean that collectors do not take these factors into consideration when collecting them. I often weigh these factors carefully when deciding to purchase any William III copper piece, but the technical grade is unaffected. I too would like to know where you found this "Information". 

That's really interesting to know about the William III copper coinage.  It's very interesting how some coins are famous for their defects rather than their attributes.  It sounds like WIlliam III coppers and Muldenhutten Mint East German coins have some things in common, in spite of being separated by many, many years of history.

[coinsandmedals]

21 minutes ago, Travis Hale said:

It actually is very prevalent in our own country, especially during & after the civil war. Also minting standards evolving. Based on certain variables & quality the standards of grading for these coins have to be changed. Plus, factor in collectors of variations & errors. Grading is much more complex as a whole to the collector community based on so many factors. The graders, the mints, & the market collectors all play a factor in this evaluation.

I think you may be conflating market value and technical grade. Although the two are closely liked they are very different things.

10 minutes ago, Mohawk said:

That's really interesting to know about the William III copper coinage.  It's very interesting how some coins are famous for their defects rather than their attributes.  It sounds like WIlliam III coppers and Muldehutten Mint East German coins have some things in common, in spite of being separated by many, many years of history.

Likewise, with the East German coins. I really enjoyed that tidbit of knowledge because I likely would have never even stumbled upon it. The William III copper coinage is an absolute mess as far as infamous defects. I suppose two do have more in common than I would have thought, which is so interesting to think about.

[Travis Hale]

The further back in history you go , my point is made clear. If history is any indication of future, which it definitely is & many factors prove this when you get into ancient coins and their gradings. It’s one of the reasons I love the hobby of collecting. They’re individually like fingerprints to me & tell stories really. Much can be examined & learned about a people, culture, & century based on the coins used. So, just as technology inevitably changes standards, the grading is evolving over time. That is why several professionals have to study the same coin under different lights in order to come up with a grade. Technology, has greatly improved the process.

[Travis Hale]

Simply the fact that we innovate the make (ridged edges) and materials (metals used) proves the evolutionary nature of grade.

[coinsandmedals]

37 minutes ago, Travis Hale said:

The further back in history you go , my point is made clear. If history is any indication of future, which it definitely is & many factors prove this when you get into ancient coins and their gradings. It’s one of the reasons I love the hobby of collecting. They’re individually like fingerprints to me & tell stories really. Much can be examined & learned about a people, culture, & century based on the coins used. So, just as technology inevitably changes standards, the grading is evolving over time. That is why several professionals have to study the same coin under different lights in order to come up with a grade. Technology, has greatly improved the process.

Ancient coins do not conform to the grading scale that US coins are affixed to. You will never see a reputable source grading ancient coins on the same grading scale as a Morgan dollar. You are comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, the reason why multiple graders look at a coin is to help remove variability between graders and ensure they are consistent with each other. For instance, in several areas of research in my field two or more trained researchers code the same data and afterwords compute inter-rater reliability coefficients to verify that they are consistent with one another. Without computing inter-rater reliability, the researchers are unable to verify if the patterns in the data are due to variability within the sample or variability within how the data from the sample are interpreted by the individual coders. It is commonplace to conduct one of several different types of statistical analyses such as Spearman’s RHO or Cohen’s Kappa to avoid the issue described above. Although professional coin graders likely do not calculate these statistics for every coin, the general underlying idea remains through the use of multiple graders. 

[Just Bob]

10 hours ago, Travis Hale said:

 That is why several professionals have to study the same coin under different lights in order to come up with a grade. 

I am not a professional grader, nor have I ever been inside a grading room, but everything that I have read on the subject contradicts this statement. Consistency is key in grading, and it is my understanding that all of the graders in the grading room use the same type and wattage of lighting. Mark  Feld was a grader for our hosts,  so he should be able to confirm this.

[Travis Hale]

I understand Bob, I’m an Accounting major & paying attention to detail has always been a strength. I almost interned with NGC & went through the info on their process. Also PCGS. These three men are allowed to disagree based on personal visual inspection & different lighting effects those judgements. Like I tried to tell Mohawk, it much more involved & extensive than most think... but by no means am I saying not to go read this yourself. The info is downloadable from their website. The devil is always in those details, but i never discount gut intuition either, but professionally, facts mean the end result observation can be reproduced by anyone else under the same situations....

[Mohawk]

3 hours ago, Travis Hale said:

I understand Bob, I’m an Accounting major & paying attention to detail has always been a strength. I almost interned with NGC & went through the info on their process. Also PCGS. These three men are allowed to disagree based on personal visual inspection & different lighting effects those judgements. Like I tried to tell Mohawk, it much more involved & extensive than most think... but by no means am I saying not to go read this yourself. The info is downloadable from their website. The devil is always in those details, but i never discount gut intuition either, but professionally, facts mean the end result observation can be reproduced by anyone else under the same situations....

The grading process may be more involved and extensive than what I outlined above, but I wasn't addressing the grading process, I was addressing grading standards.  You may be correct about the grading process but you are still incorrect by implying that where a coin was minted and the market for the coin should be factors that help determine the grade of a coin.  They shouldn't be.  I stand by what I said in a previous reply to you, grade should be determined by physical attributes of a coin, namely strike, luster, wear, if there is any and any marks or other defects. 

[jgrinz]

1 hour ago, Mohawk said:

The grading process may be more involved and extensive than what I outlined above, but I wasn't addressing the grading process, I was addressing grading standards.  You may be correct about the grading process but you are still incorrect by implying that where a coin was minted and the market for the coin should be factors that help determine the grade of a coin.  They shouldn't be.  I stand by what I said in a previous reply to you, grade should be determined by physical attributes of a coin, namely strike, luster, wear, if there is any and any marks or other defects. 

Back to the OP post of value, of course it has value, to you sentimentally , its metal content of silver, and somewhat numismatic value. This coin pictured probably will not grade from the gouge on the front and the scratch on reverse.

That being said what "mohawk" still stands true for any grading of Morgan's and grading standards in general. Strike, Luster , Wear, and I would add LOOK to the equation, as I will buy a Morgan just on look and other standards be dammed.

This coin has none of the above in my mind. Thanks for sharing the family heirlooms. 

 

 

[Travis Hale]

what came to mind when i read this was a saying my father always told me & maybe this will explain my point. i used to work out a-lot as a teen and he found it fruitless and would say "there's always someone bigger and better out there". Now say we grade a coin based on normal factors MS70 & lets say its a one off and said so by those standards. There is still a chance no matter how small that there is a better one out there. So we add a shield or a word gem to it. there is still a chance for better no matter how small. the reason is two fold. Coin grading is both Subjective, & Objective. Unless we turn the grading completely over to a computer or machine, the human factor always has variable outcomes. So, my point was that in some years of certain coins and certain mint amounts and environmental circumstances for example the earlier Lincoln cents, we assume because it hasn't surfaced the best graded coin from then sets a standard of its own. There still is a chance no matter how small that the standard could be broken.  if it were just computer standardized grading like Mohawk says, then that would never happen. the computer doesn't care, but the human factor creates this variable based on market value and visual perspective and uniqueness. I believe a machine would never see uniqueness nor care about it in the grading of anything. so when a free willed conscience being is involved there will always be non-obvious, unexplainable outcomes. And you have to apply this to more time than the decade say of the 70's. if thats where your always stuck standard wise, you'll miss the entire point of the evolution of coin grading based on materials used, & level of advanced technology.

[jgrinz]

9 minutes ago, Travis Hale said:

what came to mind when i read this was a saying my father always told me & maybe this will explain my point. i used to work out a-lot as a teen and he found it fruitless and would say "there's always someone bigger and better out there". Now say we grade a coin based on normal factors MS70 & lets say its a one off and said so by those standards. There is still a chance no matter how small that there is a better one out there. So we add a shield or a word gem to it. there is still a chance for better no matter how small. the reason is two fold. Coin grading is both Subjective, & Objective. Unless we turn the grading completely over to a computer or machine, the human factor always has variable outcomes. So, my point was that in some years of certain coins and certain mint amounts and environmental circumstances for example the earlier Lincoln cents, we assume because it hasn't surfaced the best graded coin from then sets a standard of its own. There still is a chance no matter how small that the standard could be broken.  if it were just computer standardized grading like Mohawk says, then that would never happen. the computer doesn't care, but the human factor creates this variable based on market value and visual perspective and uniqueness. I believe a machine would never see uniqueness nor care about it in the grading of anything. so when a free willed conscience being is involved there will always be non-obvious, unexplainable outcomes. And you have to apply this to more time than the decade say of the 70's. if thats where your always stuck standard wise, you'll miss the entire point of the evolution of coin grading based on materials used, & level of advanced technology.

That's why I, an owner of a 105 Morgan circulating set, added the human factor with "Look" … its there and always will be involved in the grading process. As far as New Orleans mint coins … I only buy them breast feathers :-) Take Care Travis 

[MarkFeld]

19 minutes ago, Travis Hale said:

what came to mind when i read this was a saying my father always told me & maybe this will explain my point. i used to work out a-lot as a teen and he found it fruitless and would say "there's always someone bigger and better out there". Now say we grade a coin based on normal factors MS70 & lets say its a one off and said so by those standards. There is still a chance no matter how small that there is a better one out there. So we add a shield or a word gem to it. there is still a chance for better no matter how small. the reason is two fold. Coin grading is both Subjective, & Objective. Unless we turn the grading completely over to a computer or machine, the human factor always has variable outcomes. So, my point was that in some years of certain coins and certain mint amounts and environmental circumstances for example the earlier Lincoln cents, we assume because it hasn't surfaced the best graded coin from then sets a standard of its own. There still is a chance no matter how small that the standard could be broken.  if it were just computer standardized grading like Mohawk says, then that would never happen. the computer doesn't care, but the human factor creates this variable based on market value and visual perspective and uniqueness. I believe a machine would never see uniqueness nor care about it in the grading of anything. so when a free willed conscience being is involved there will always be non-obvious, unexplainable outcomes. And you have to apply this to more time than the decade say of the 70's. if thats where your always stuck standard wise, you'll miss the entire point of the evolution of coin grading based on materials used, & level of advanced technology.

You’re making this out to be far more intricate and complicated than it is. The coin looks to be AU details, damaged. Yes, someone else might opine that it’s not damaged and/or that it’s not AU details. But if they do, it should not have anything to do with the date or mintmark of the coin.

[Travis Hale]

i have many of them. & there could be better ones always, lol.

[Travis Hale]

outside the box...