Grading opinions: 1896-O

I bought an 1896-O on Ebay recently listed an MS-60 although I thought it
was only AU and paid less than AU money. This date increases in value
greatly above XF. I would like a couple of opinions as to the grade. I've
been fairly good in the past but I still have some to learn about upper end
Morgans. http://webpages.charter.net/txeagle/1896-O

Now that you have looked at it, the coin is more white and reflective than
the scan indicates. (I'll follow up later about which good digital camera
purchase) My gut feeling tells me this one has been dipped in looking at it
but again I could be wrong on this, some of the luster does seem to flow.

I'm considering submitting this as part of the 4 free PCGS slabs. If it does
get an AU or better, certainly worthwhile in that case. At worse.....bodybag
cleaned.

For an MS grade, I know the standards say no trace of wear. I have seen some
MS Morgans in which the breast feathers seem flat in detail compared to
others. That and the curls above the ear on the obverse. Some years seem to
be distinct and other years seem to be flat. Is this the case, the dies used
lacked detail in some years?
In other words, which part of the coin do you look at first to gauge a
difference between AU and MS.
Also in a previous thread, it was said a dip may improve a coin's grade even
by PCGS standards. Dipping is not considered cleaning, (if done right)?


Thanks, Mike

Based on the image in my opinion AU50 net XF45
due to lite cleaning and distracting staple scratch on obverse.

"Mike" wrote in message ...
I bought an 1896-O on Ebay recently listed an MS-60 although I thought it
was only AU and paid less than AU money. This date increases in value
greatly above XF. I would like a couple of opinions as to the grade. I've
been fairly good in the past but I still have some to learn about upper end
Morgans. http://webpages.charter.net/txeagle/1896-O

I'm sure that PCGS would bodybag it. The coin is very harshly cleaned.

Hey Mike - My vote is "definitely cleaned" and edge dents, a scratch on obverse
and breast wear say it is an AU 56 I think. Could tell better under a loup but
- it is another opinion for you. -Ken

What? No cussing? insults? cheap put downs?

You okay, Flecon?


Have you confused Flecon with Flecaw?

The latter is the troll.

Regards,
Tom

Have you confused Flecon with Flecaw?


It looks like Flecaw has disappeared.
Mommy and daddy probably got wind
of what junior was doing and put a stop
to it.

THANKS, John.

"John Baumgart" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
I bought an 1896-O on Ebay recently listed an MS-60 although I thought
it
was only AU and paid less than AU money. This date increases in value
greatly above XF. I would like a couple of opinions as to the grade.
I've
been fairly good in the past but I still have some to learn about upper
end
Morgans. http://webpages.charter.net/txeagle/1896-O

Cleaned AU. Can't tell how harsh the cleaning since the picture is from a
scanner rather than a camera.

Now that you have looked at it, the coin is more white and reflective
than
the scan indicates. (I'll follow up later about which good digital
camera
purchase) My gut feeling tells me this one has been dipped in looking at
it
but again I could be wrong on this, some of the luster does seem to
flow.

I'm considering submitting this as part of the 4 free PCGS slabs. If it
does
get an AU or better, certainly worthwhile in that case. At
worse.....bodybag
cleaned.

For an MS grade, I know the standards say no trace of wear. I have seen
some
MS Morgans in which the breast feathers seem flat in detail compared to
others. That and the curls above the ear on the obverse. Some years seem
to
be distinct and other years seem to be flat. Is this the case, the dies
used
lacked detail in some years?

1896-O is one of the ugliest Morgan dollar dates you can get. Typically,
they have lousy luster, a poor strike, and unsightly marks. The dies
didn't
lack detail, the coins were just poorly struck, especially the hair above
the ear and the eagle's breast. 1880-S and 81-S, on the other hand, are
always fully struck and are typically quite attractive coins.

In other words, which part of the coin do you look at first to gauge a
difference between AU and MS.

I first go to two spots. On the obverse, there's the "V" of Liberty's
neck.
Stand the coin on edge on a white piece of paper. If the coin is AU and
has
not been harshly cleaned, you will see a grey streak near the point of the
neck. On the reverse, the eagle's breast shows the same phenomenon.

Also in a previous thread, it was said a dip may improve a coin's grade
even
by PCGS standards. Dipping is not considered cleaning, (if done right)?

Yes, no, and maybe, in no particular order.

John Baumgart

I would say cleaned XF.


"Mike" wrote in message
...
I bought an 1896-O on Ebay recently listed an MS-60 although I thought it
was only AU and paid less than AU money. This date increases in value
greatly above XF. I would like a couple of opinions as to the grade. I've
been fairly good in the past but I still have some to learn about upper
end
Morgans. http://webpages.charter.net/txeagle/1896-O

Now that you have looked at it, the coin is more white and reflective than
the scan indicates. (I'll follow up later about which good digital camera
purchase) My gut feeling tells me this one has been dipped in looking at
it
but again I could be wrong on this, some of the luster does seem to flow.

I'm considering submitting this as part of the 4 free PCGS slabs. If it
does
get an AU or better, certainly worthwhile in that case. At
worse.....bodybag
cleaned.

For an MS grade, I know the standards say no trace of wear. I have seen
some
MS Morgans in which the breast feathers seem flat in detail compared to
others. That and the curls above the ear on the obverse. Some years seem
to
be distinct and other years seem to be flat. Is this the case, the dies
used
lacked detail in some years?
In other words, which part of the coin do you look at first to gauge a
difference between AU and MS.
Also in a previous thread, it was said a dip may improve a coin's grade
even
by PCGS standards. Dipping is not considered cleaning, (if done right)?


Thanks, Mike

"Linda" wrote in message
...
THANKS, John.

Pleasure to be of service.

John

"John Baumgart" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
I bought an 1896-O on Ebay recently listed an MS-60 although I thought
it
was only AU and paid less than AU money. This date increases in value
greatly above XF. I would like a couple of opinions as to the grade.
I've
been fairly good in the past but I still have some to learn about
upper
end
Morgans. http://webpages.charter.net/txeagle/1896-O

Cleaned AU. Can't tell how harsh the cleaning since the picture is from
a
scanner rather than a camera.

Now that you have looked at it, the coin is more white and reflective
than
the scan indicates. (I'll follow up later about which good digital
camera
purchase) My gut feeling tells me this one has been dipped in looking
at
it
but again I could be wrong on this, some of the luster does seem to
flow.

I'm considering submitting this as part of the 4 free PCGS slabs. If
it
does
get an AU or better, certainly worthwhile in that case. At
worse.....bodybag
cleaned.

For an MS grade, I know the standards say no trace of wear. I have
seen
some
MS Morgans in which the breast feathers seem flat in detail compared
to
others. That and the curls above the ear on the obverse. Some years
seem
to
be distinct and other years seem to be flat. Is this the case, the
dies
used
lacked detail in some years?

1896-O is one of the ugliest Morgan dollar dates you can get.
Typically,
they have lousy luster, a poor strike, and unsightly marks. The dies
didn't
lack detail, the coins were just poorly struck, especially the hair
above
the ear and the eagle's breast. 1880-S and 81-S, on the other hand, are
always fully struck and are typically quite attractive coins.

In other words, which part of the coin do you look at first to gauge a
difference between AU and MS.

I first go to two spots. On the obverse, there's the "V" of Liberty's
neck.
Stand the coin on edge on a white piece of paper. If the coin is AU and
has
not been harshly cleaned, you will see a grey streak near the point of
the
neck. On the reverse, the eagle's breast shows the same phenomenon.

Also in a previous thread, it was said a dip may improve a coin's
grade
even
by PCGS standards. Dipping is not considered cleaning, (if done
right)?

Yes, no, and maybe, in no particular order.

John Baumgart