I don't really know what I'm looking at there, tell you the truth, except we now know the slab ain't faked. You should see some of the seller's other stuff.
A weakly, flatly struck UNC coin, even a trial strike should have luster, and not be circulated gray, right?
If it was a weak strike center details would be sharp and edge would weak on both sides, this coin has circulation wear.
I see that as a very small possibility. Do I think PCGS would put that much thought into this coin if it came across their desk?-No. They would take 1 glance at it, call it Fine details, and move to the next one. That's why I think this is a mechanical error. Those graders spend 8-10 seconds on coins like this, so I highly doubt they did this purposefully.
You might be right...this could be a mechanical error on the slab. However, your statement that they only spend 8-10 seconds per coin which implies they are not thorough is inaccurate. Yes, errors are made on their part...but the graders at PCGS are skilled and know their craft. You don't need to spend an hour staring at a coin to be able to grade it and know what it is if you have done it for long enough.
I would argue that the amount of time, or lack thereof, that they spend on any given coin, plays directly into accuracy! I once sent a bust half in for grading with a bulging die. This overton was well known for that. A rarity 4. They called it "bent" because they didn't spend enough time with it and/or give the coin it's due diligence. This kind of thing happens all the time. I understand that no one is perfect, but there are numerous examples of this happening. Just ask @Cascade about PCGS' reliability on VAMs.
Not much initial thought is needed with a trained eye. I picked up on it stright away from bad pics. In hand if I were a pcgs grader I would have immediately noticed something unusual going on and spent more time on the coin. You can't have circulation wear to the same degree on every single high point. So then I would think it was a strike issue or a mechanical whizzing issue and go from there
Yes but what you're assuming is that every coin gets the exact same amount of time. There are plenty of submissions of mid grade coins they can blow through with ease while spending more time on a particular coin when they feel it warrants it and keep a low average time per coin. Could that coin be a mechanical error sure, but Cascade has made a lot of good points. Something more is going on for it to have that uniform of a look
Exactly, I believe they are also just educated guesses based off the number of graders and an average number of coins graded per day as well. Modern bulk grading probably lowers that average a touch as well
Ya think ? I submit to you, all of you, that it is far, far, more likely for a coin to have very equal wear on all of the high points, than it is for it to be some strike anomaly. And to back that up here's a picture of one. Equal, even wear on every single high point on the coin, both obv and rev ! And to approximately the same degree as the Morgan ! So it does happen, and it happens far more often than some of you guys seem to be thinking. People post pictures of them here on a fairly regular basis - they call them pocket pieces. And the thing about it is that pocket pieces pieces achieve wear in exactly the same ways that coins in circulation achieve wear - by rubbing against things. So yes, equal wear on all the high points is NORMAL ! Each and every one of you has seen it a million times, on just about any VF or lower grade coin ! Now, all of that said, how then is the PCGS UNC notation explained ? Very simply, mechanical error.
Pocket pieces definitely do shoot a hole in theory as it is possible that could be what we are seeing. But then my question would be out of all the Morgans one could use as a pocket piece, why choose a 92-S when there are far cheaper options available? That ones almost worth the 60 bucks it sold for just to try get a look at it in person
