GTG: 1884 CC Morgan

The 79 did not make PL, as the reverse is not PL, but the obverse definitely is--I do agree with the grade on that one. The 93cc is not a 62--I would say 63 all day, and I will eventually cross it at NGC with minimum grade. It does have great luster, brought down by a very baggy reverse--the die crack doesn't affect the grade--in fact, I thought it kind of cool.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sometimes I think they throw a dart @ a board when grading these? Or a flip of a coin......

 

Luster must have ruled out over contact marks in the OP coin.

 

It really shouldn't. The number 1 criteria for grading is "surface preservation." That OP coin isn't even close to a 66--it somehow slipped through 1 1/2 to 2 grades too high. Yes, it has good luster, but so do a lot of the cc Morgans.

 

Sorry but that coin was NOT a 64. I returned it so I have no skin in the game, but people saying 63 or 64 are being ridiculous. It just wasn't a 66 with pure technical grading. Maybe some grader thought it had eye appeal, I didn't see it but who knows. It was definitely lustrous. Also, that coin's photos have been compared to blurry, wide field photos of other coins this whole thread like it's a valid comparison.

 

No, they are not being ridiculous. It is definitely not a 63, nor is it a 66. The consensus is high grade 64 to 65, and that makes a lot of sense. It was simply an over graded coin-- not unusual.

 

Is it just me or are the marks on this coin blurred out? Were these photos edited?

 

It is just you. No editing. There are plenty of bag marks--just not large ones. This is my criterion for buying GSA Morgans--minimal bag marks, as it is hard to find ones totally absent of bag marks without paying ludicrous amounts of money, even for higher grades.

 

Were these the seller's photos? I circled the parts the are blurred out in the photos. Either that, or there were smudges on the case that lined up perfectly with marks on the coin. I'm not accusing you of anything, it's just that the photos look altered.

 

No way. I was guessing about MS 64+ to 65

 

It was not a 66. Here's the seller's photos for a different perspective

 

I think this grade is why PCGS-graded coins generally sell for more than NGC-graded ones.

 

I reiterate--the coin is generally clean. I buy coins with as clean surfaces as I can when it comes to bright ones (non-toners), or I don't waste my money. There are clearly bag marks, but they are very slight, compared to the general MS 63-64 GSA Morgans. You are obviously not used to looking at relatively clean ones. I also use a very expensive camera that doesn't exaggerate every flaw to make it look like the Grand Canyon, and shoot with indirect light. You tend to accentuate the flaws in your coins from the way you shoot pictures--that is probably why you have had some lower guesses than you would like in GTG postings. Getting a MS 65 CC Morgan with clean face and only minimal bag marks in the fields isn't all that unusual. That was my picture--I know what camera angles make the coin look more like a coin in hand, as opposed to a portrait of Crater Lake National Park. Before you accuse people of retouching coins, learn to grade more accurately, and not make impulse purchases of coins that aren't that attractive for the grade. When you do buy ones that are "worth it," you have gotten the due praise that the coin deserves--including from myself. However, indiscriminate impulse buying leads to getting coins that don't necessarily look great in grade. You are guilty of that, and palm your guilt off on others when they complain that your choices are overgraded, or not all that big in the eye appeal department for the grade.

 

You are obviously very skilled. It's just that the photos with my highlighted marks look altered. The photo is specifically blurrier where there look to be marks on the coin. I am in no way questioning your superior skills as a grader, or your superior skills as a photographer, it's just that if the photos were altered it's sort of like stacking the deck. This isn't really about the quality of the camera, lighting, or my ability to see relatively clean coins. Did those photos spend any time in Photoshop? You probably won't admit it, but it is as clear as day that they were altered. And when they are used only to highlight my dearth of skills or judgement, or to reinforce your own, it's how the conflicts you brought up in another thread occur.

 

Sorry, I responded to your post before you edited it to add more ad hominem remarks. I am really trying to figure out a way to respond to defend myself without sinking to this level. You have said my pictures accentuate the coin in a negative way, but then say I need to stop buying coins that aren't attractive "for the grade". Either they are attractive or they are not, if you put that much credibility into the grade then you are contradicting yourself. But if my pictures are unflattering, then maybe they actually are attractive.

I am not really looking for praise, I'm looking to enjoy the forum. I am not trying to make indiscriminate purchases. I am making purchases, some of which have been very good. I don't have any guilt, I have a problem with people who feel they need to criticize other's judgement on a forum. Especially when they go to great lengths to make themselves look superior, such as altering their photos. You can attack me all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you altered your photo to make it look better.

 

Ignore list-- yawn.

 

why does the In God we trust look "fuzzy"?

 

Yes, this has become very "boor"ing.

 

You haven't lost much by getting on his Ignore list.

I think the areas you highlighted on those pics are smudges on the slab; they don't show signs of manipulation at the pixel level

 

I took the advice and used a better angle that's more flattering to the coin. How does it look now