Thoughts on these two Morgans

I could be incorrect, as I've just expressed an opinion as a long term collector of this type/grade certified coin. I assume your collection, period of examination, and knowledge of same excels.

As a supposed "top tier" TPG grader, please provide your professional explanation as to why the coin in the following link surpasses that of the OP, especially the reverse:
http://www.apmex.com/product/52596/...h&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_engine

If additional references are required, its believed I could readily
supply same from currently available public offerings.

JMHO

P.S.: You may consider using your superior objective comparative skills to explain the Paramount differences of this extraordinary "Gem" 1901 O Morgan relative to the coin images of the OP:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1901-O-Morg...hash=item2c5d8b1c96:m:mGhyo-Gcy0adJdXawxUmvUQ

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

OP has two nice coins for sure...but...the 1901-o in which you have linked is graded as GEM PL by PCGS (the population for a 65PL at PCGS is only 164 with only 21 higher)...I'm assuming the OP's coin is in "garage" plastic...those are the only differences I can see so far from just photo's.

 

I won't say I'm "amazed" - I can't; it happens too often - but anyone making conclusive statements based on these poor images is merely proving their inability to grade from images, when the most important subset of said skill is to know when the images aren't good enough to draw conclusions.

Like these. They're PCGS slabs, graded well below what we're offering for grades here, and that should be an immediate red flag suggesting there may be things we're not seeing.

 

HUH?????

 

I think he's looking for a fight.

 

I trust you'll note that in my post the opinion was qualified, thus: "I can post several that don't have the condition of those coins, from the detail I've viewed." I also stated that my relative comparison/opinion wasn't based on images, but by a comparable PCGS MS65 Morgan being held in hand and compared to the OP images as I typed, thus: "One of the coins is a PCGS MS65 8" DMPL, which has appreciable chatter, mini-scratches/dings in Obverse fields, and probably a dozen mini-scratches/dings in prominent Obverse devices. The Reverse has minimal micro-scratches in the fields."

Having regularly acquired the subject coins through viewing images since auction sites were commonplace, it is generally very evident when fields and devices are less than appropriate for the grade. The links I provided could relatively be understood by a knowledgeable observer as deficient grade product, which I could explain with understanding.

JMHO

 

...is it just me or does reading the above post make you feel extremely high on drugs???

 

I believe you'll determine it's just the normal sensation for some when overcome by logic, as one feels when losing their faculties to drugs.

The sensation usually is tempered by a texting session.

I'm trying the K.I.S.S. technique now. I'm typing s l o w l y .

JMHO

 

To the contrary... An inadvertent unexplained "Double Post" which seems to be unremovable by the author, so just truncated by same for the following addendum. SORRY!!

 

To the contrary, when someone STATES authoritatively that your thoroughly explained opinion is definitely wrong, someone is incorrect. That someone may be me, so I want to learn by an objective explanation.

It's assumed that the contester is someone learned as Doug, or a "Top Tier" TPG Grader, as I've thoroughly studied through numerous processes, the current "market grading" techniques of the TPG.

Since I had explained in terms that a literate officionado would understand, seemingly without being comprehended, it appeared that images of the suggested grade and respective dates/mints were in order.

An uninformed viewer wouldn't understand the nuances of a specific grade/TPG standard, and couldn't present an explanation as I had submitted, but possibly could understand my explanations of any differences/deficiencies.

I just requested a learned explanation from a professed authority who made seemingly rash unsupported statements.

I apologize if my request was unreasonable and offense is taken. I'm just here to learn or teach.

JMHO

 

All your doing is trolling

 

...fair enough...I will quit it

 

Well here is the 1880 S and yes it is Vam # 11 as it has several markers that confirm the Vam.

Coin in hand it's a solid 64+ and maybe a 65. Very clean fields. Considering the amount I paid ,the fact it's a vam 11{ "hot 50 " vam }
I'm thinking I made out very well as the coin is worth 1.5 times more then what I paid.

 

Nice PCI photo slab, too! I wouldn't crack that one. If it were mine, I'd keep it as is while I owned it, and sell it to someone who appreciates it for what it is if I ever decided to get rid of it.

 

No Paul she's not going to be cracked out..........as I'm the someone who appreciates it. The reverse on this coin is awesome ,cart wheel luster,and frosty devices. With a touch of a reddish-brown hue.1880/9 vam She's a keeper

 

You knocked it outta the park Paddy!!! How does the 01o look in-hand??

 

• It's a vam 33 nice coin as far as strike and condition I say a 64 nice rim toning. As far as what I paid for the two coins I'm very pleased with the out come. Two neat retro slabs both in my book under graded by 1 to 2 points. And a top 50 vam......yeah I'm

 

Not sure which I like better, the slabs or the coins.