GTG: 1884 CC Morgan

Certainly can't argue with that. When I look at one in the shop the first thing I look at is the cheek and get a rough grade in mind. They had a couple of 66's in the case that this coin reminded me of. The hits were noticeable enough that I did not even have them take them out of the case to look at. And I don't collect morgans, but if I see one I consider nice for the grade I will pick them up. I think I have 3 or 4 now

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Don't have a close-up of this one, but you can see the devices are much cleaner on this 65.

 

No comparison between this one and the alleged 66. This is a much nicer coin!!

 

Thanks. I've taken great care when buying GSA's especially, as I believe they get lenient grading. I plan to send all of them to Robec for real photos one day. I really like my 85-CC MS65, but alas, no pictures at this time.

 

Me too---my three common date cc dates are all GSAs. I have three 65s, two toned 64s, and a DMPL 1883cc GSA, all in the original holder, with the NGC ribbon. To me, the originality, combined with the NGC grade makes them have added value.

 

Like I've said before I really think Slab company has slack off alot. Now we are buying for what they said it is and Not what we see it is. Like this coin I've bought from Ebay it doesn't look MS 64. More like 63 or 63+. Before I've bought this coin it look alright from the Pic the seller are it is what the grade is 64. But when I got it in the mail the bag marked on the face and the somewhat deep scratches on the breast of the eagle doesn't look like a 64.

 

That's a solid 65 in my opinion op coin in second photo is a 64 at best

 

I think their more inconsistent then ever. And more and more market grading. And they still like to detail stuff for no apparent reason. Had a dime was unc details reverse cleaned I bought cheap. After looking and looking I still didn't see it. A couple years later (this summer) I cracked it out and sent it back to ngc. They called it a 65 which I didn't agree with either but I'll take it. Coin in my opinion is a solid 63 maybe 64 on a good day has clean fields but not enough luster and flash for a 65

 

I'll take it off you hands, no questions asked . Good price too.

 

So I guess this is truly a question of buy the coin, not the holder. If it's slabbed with a grade, does it hold the value of the grade it is given? Or will the market at some point dictate it will not command the price that a true coin for that grade will receive?

 

That's really hard to answer. If you go to sell it, my guess would be it'll go as 65 money.

All this being said, if you like the coin, then don't worry about it.

I've seen wildly varying contact marks vs. grades for Morgans. It just a matter of studying many, many coins and comparing them to your ideas of what the grade should be. Use Auction archives to view hundreds, if not thousands of 66 Morgans and you'll see the gamut. Read the ANA grading standards for Morgans and compare them to TPG grades.

 

I think one would be hard pressed to pay 66 money for that coin. As I said before, I honestly believe that NGC blew it, and I doubt that it would sell for 66 money to someone who is a fussy collector of Morgans, and wants a nice 66. That coin simply isn't a nice, solid 66.

 

I agree, it wasn't until i saw the coin in person that I realized it looked like a 65. Luckily, the seller is very cool and I am able to return it. It was a good price, but the jump from 65 to 66 is so steep I felt it didn't warrant the price. So does that mean a "true" 66 coin should sell for price guide or above? Or can one still expect to pay under the price guide for a "true" 66 coin?

 

I use Heritage Auctions Archives for my pricing "comps". I also use their current auctions to find a like coin date/mm/grade because the listing has a table with a lot of pricing information.

IMO, if I'm buying an "A" coin for the grade, I'll pay a premium for the coin. What that premium is depends on the coin itself.

 

I think the 1882-CC should be cracked out and submitted to PCGS. It's a lot better looking than the GTG coin, IMO.

 

@Mike Thorne , if you're referring to the coin I posted, I'm interested to hear more of your thoughts about cracking this out of a GSA holder.

 

I would never crack out a GSA cc Morgan from its holder. If one has the NGC or now the PCGS grade, and thinks that it is under graded, submit it in the holder for a re-grade and specify minimum for a crossover or regrade. I feel that the GSA holder has value added, and like them in the original holder. A number of collectors feel the same way. If the coin is 63-65, I tell folks not to bother on the 1882-1884cc dates. If it is a likely 66, then by all means submit to the TPG for a re-grade. I would not crack it out, however, as if it doesn't make the grade, it is no longer a GSA Morgan, and lots of collectors prefer them that way.

 

Here is a larger image of your coin as posted. I made it bigger, and adjusted only the brightness. If the reverse is as nice as the obverse, it is pretty close to a 66. At the very least, based on the obverse, that is knocking on the door of 66. If I had graded it, I would have gone 65+ star with NGC.

 

Agree 100%. I just wanted Mike to expound on his statement.

I personally do not like how PCGS grades/holders GSA's. That outer case it so large, it won't fit in the OGP anymore.

I do have one PCGS coin that has GSA on the blue label. Someone must have sent the GSA to PCGS for grading, PCGS cracked it out of the holder and put it in their regular slab. It was well before PCGS started their current GSA grading method.

 

I'm getting ready for a submission to NGC. I might send this and my '85 CC in for reconsideration. The jump in $$$ is worth a try.