What will they grade ? MS 1889-CC & 1893-CC Morgans .

I stand corrected, it's VAM-5, you got it spot on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Now how can you say that? If it's not AU58, it's MS64 and up. That's no MS61. MS61s are baggy.

 

I believe both will grade straight, the rough look of the 89-cc was in the die, look at VAM-5, it's the late die state, pay close attention to the die crack on the reverse. it's the same as on the pics on Vamworld, although less late in die state.

 

I zoomed up the obverse picture 4X in my browser, and I think you're right, these bumps are from the weakened die. As dies run hot, i.e., not greased, they tend to become porous. I read that, somewhere, I don't remember where. Even if that's not how this happened, I now believe these bumps are from a porous die.

I think this is MS65, too, now, although I don't think PCGS is going to let it in for that money, given the die state.

 

I'm at:
62+
64
Nice little discussion going on, here.

 

unfortunately I have to agree (hope I'm wrong though) $200,000 price jump from 64 to 65 on the 89cc leads me to believe it won't get the nod for 65.

 

WOW, rare coins! If these were common date CCs they will grade MS64, so my guess is that both will grade 63.

 

They're real, and they're spectacular.

89-CC 58 or 61 (face is pretty rough)
93-CC 63

 

I hope I am wrong! It's just hard to accept that a coin worth potentially 5-figures has not been authenticated already.

Does anyone remember the time a few years ago when some Chinese counterfeit key-date Morgans were shopped around at the FUN Show and most of the dealers were fooled by them?

Chris

 

I remember hearing about it, but I never got to see the coins. It's a lot easier to fool someone with a circulated coin, once details and genuine diagnostics start to fade, than with an MS63.

 

John, I asked Dan, and he powdered on it, so I'll ask you. How can that '89, if it's indeed in uncirculated condition, go only MS61? If it's indeed uncirculated, it goes MS64, at bottom, MS63. The grading scale isn't a continuum, but rather an abrupt switch in criteria, once you're beyond evaluating on the basis of wear. Technically, if that coin has no wear, and that "roughness" is just an attribute of the state of the die, i.e., it isn't PMD, or anything like that, that's no MS61.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding market grading. Is that what market grading is, it overlooks the technical grade and penalizes the die state, just for the market, i.e., the money? Should these market grades rather have dollar signs on them, i.e., $MS61, to more accurately reflect that's what in fact these TPGs are doing with this, um, what used to be a, "hobby?" If so, why don't they just say it, get it off their chest, instead of conning us into thinking they're grading? We spend a lot of time in these GTG threads taking them seriously, like they're really grading. If they're really appraising, we're wasting our time. Guess how much money this coin costs? Guess how much money this coin can sell for? And we're encouraging YNs to waste their money on grading classes for that? They ought to be taking marketing and appraisal classes, they want to know how to guess market grades.

In short, market grading does penalize it for the die state, doesn't it? Why? Just because the TPGs feel like it. It's like when a coin gets detailed for color. Just because the TPGs feel like it. They have no criteria for AT/NT, they can't even define those terms. There are no criteria. Just money. We're just not ready to face that, yet, so we have to go on and on conning ourselves they're going on grading criteria. Ah, I'm sorry, end of rant. Have other things to waste my time on, as in, i.e., a job, than guessing how much money a TPG will say a coin is worth in their market in their plastic.

 

Grading is just an opinion of the graders. Each of us have a different pair of eyes.

 

Bottom line is that the roughness doesn't look like die stage to me. The patch of bag marks, none of which is heavy, half-way between the eye and ear, is exemplary of the rough surface I'm talking about, and I have the impression the entire cheek is a bit like this. There are also scuffs in less conspicuous areas, on the lower hair and back of the cap. The fields have more contact marks than those of the 93-CC, also. Luster on an 89-CC should be quite good, and it doesn't seem as good as that on the 93-CC. There's no "creaminess" to it anywhere. The luster of the 93-CC helps that coin.

Perhaps I'm harsh saying 61, and 62 wouldn't surprise me either, but once you get past it being an uncirculated (unless rub is hiding on the tip of the bust) 89-CC it has shortcomings you wouldn't see on a 64.

Regarding market grading, at the end of the day, the TPGs guarantee their grades with money, and the coins sell for money, so all grades are market grades. It's more in the interest of a TPG with a grade guarantee to play it safe when there's a $10,000 bump from one grade to the next than a $10 bump.

Finally, the standard disclaimer that you can't always grade accurately from pictures applies, even though these are excellent pictures. There are things you just can't know without tilting the coin in the light a little.

 

seriously?

AU?

 

A coin that would normally be MS-64 if not for a few light hairlines is often graded MS-61.

 

First 1 is 63. The second - I just think details on it based off the pictures. So the second will be AU/MS details. Can't wait to see what they come back from.

 

From the pictures off my phone, yes sir. The bottom leaves look more like wear than bag marks also the breast feathers.

But than again I grade like GD

 

The surface bumpiness as opposed to "creaminess" (I get what you're describing, there) is from the porous die state, as there's nothing else that explains that. You can see it less-prominently in the fields, better still, in the perimeter-fields. There's a swipe across it, too, extending through the ear and adjacent hair, and I don't quite know what I want to make of that. I see where you're coming from better, now, though, if you're not concluded on a die state attribute, and, in addition, are seeing heavier and more scuffing than I'm seeing.

On the TPGs, simply put, then level with us. Are you grading for collectors, or are you appraising for investors? Cut out the crap. That's all I'm saying, John.

 

Often? Just show me one. Let me see just one example of these "light hairlines" you're referencing knocking down a coin's grade from MS64 to MS61.

 

Maybe this isn't a good example, since the picture's not very good, but here's an 89-CC graded MS61. It doesn't have a lot of hits, but it other factors (luster, eye appeal) are limiting it to 61.

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-doll...portant-dates-in-this-series-the/a/420-1329.s

Here's a more recent one with PL fields. A few small, heavier marks, but seems like it should be grading higher. The PL glam shot could be hiding hairlines or something else we're not seeing.

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1889-cc-1-ms61-ngc/a/1219-5163.s

Here's one graded MS63. It has a "tighter" look to it, a little frostiness to the luster, and is generally more eye-appealing.

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1889-cc-1-ms63-ngc/a/1207-3844.s

I don't pretend that TPGs don't use market grading and indirectly assign value to the coins, especially when they back up their grading with cash. I also don't think this is a bad thing.