Atrocity in PCGS 65 slab

My first though is, this must be a fake slab. The coin does not appear to be a gem and the toning does not correspond to my understanding of how natural toning is created.
What do you think?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1884-O-MORG...486?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3aa163f026

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks like colorful album toning to me. The progression goes from the outer edges to the middle. I have seen such things pulled out of albums, rarely but it happens if fully BU and stored in an old album. The reverse is white due to being protected.

 

My experience with photography leads me to believe that the image has either been taken under lighting conditions that extracted every last bit of color the coin had, and then some, or the image was color saturated.

 

Im guessing the graders fell in love with it and gave it a bump due to eye appeal

 

I'm with Tom. The photo looks like it has been juiced. If I had seen it without the PCGS slab, I would have thought it AT. My next thought was that it is a fake slab. Did you check the cert look-up? In any case, it doesn't look like a 65 to me, either.

Chris

 

Welcome to the future of market grading, where all your previously acquired gem coins need to be re-submitted if you want full value when you sell. Nice work if you can get.

 

Yep, juiced. You can tell by the contrast/saturation of the label's color compared to the normal PCGS blue label.

 

OK, so maybe a juiced photo. However I'm not seeing "elevation chromatics" which makes me suspicious of the toning.

 

The slab is 100% authentic and fine. The pic is taken at an angle to over-emphasize the color and probably post-processed to oversaturate.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether it's "AT" or not, PCGS has given it their Market Acceptable (MA) blessing, so it is what it is.

And, at a mark-up of 20x a regular example, I'd not give it a 2nd glance.

 

I'm looking at the gradient on the label -- lots of "chroma noise", with greenish blobs where it fades from lavender to white.

Yes, "juiced". They stretched the color contrast in this image beyond belief.

 

Someone overdid the photoshop. It's like when real estate agents discovered HDR and suddenly every listing looked so intense. Way overboard on Hue & Saturation.

 

Helpful comments on the technical aspects of oversaturation. I've learned something. Now, if we just look at the surface condition of the coin, what do you (personally) think it grades? From the images, 63 seems charitable to me.

 

I think the slab is truly as photographed with an improper red-shifted white balance. But the image clearly shows the digital relic of a circular crop around the coin, and likely a pretty hefty saturation bump.

 

It used to be considered a 63, but TPG's have keep their submitters happy.
These are both in MS66 holders.

 

This is a 66+ now!

 

Cheek looks like crap to me, I'd give it a 62 and wouldn't pay more than $50. Then again, I'm not a Morgan fanatic.

 

I agree with the general consensus of the thread so far. I'm not seeing a 65 (maybe a 63), and the photo looks juiced.

 

The redbook price is $165 why Is it over priced?

 

Because its "pretty".

 

Yeah--if you bring that pic into Photoshop, the histogram indicates the colors are way beyond the normal tonal range. Judging by the yellow center and off-color plastic, the saturation has been pushed to the extremes. It's likely closer to this: