Technical Grading Challenge

I couldn't resist this one, because its fields were so nice and it looks close to DPL, but it has one glaring hit on the cheek. I'm assuming this can't get 65 because of the hit, but the fields and reverse are completely spectacular. Is there ever a technical bump for the coin as a whole or is a big hit in the focal areas a death sentence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That hit is a death sentence imo, but I agree the reverse is fantastic. Shame about that cheek hit though because it really draws the eye directly to it.

 

Enlarged there appears to be a die crack between the 1 & 8 and between the 3 and 1st star. Is this a VAM? Also, is that smearing on the case or coin?

 

Every Morgan is a VAM, but this looks like a VAM 7. Everything you see is on the coin.

 

It's a Vam 5 A double date,double cc, N and T clashes die scratch wing. Another pup is the wing tip over polished. There's also a long die scratch in the top of denticals below DO in dollar.

Must admit this one was easy to vam as I just purchased an 83 cc Sunday and it's the same vam.

 

I don't think it's a 5A, there's no spiked beak and all the clashes are well polished

 

VAM-7 was rolled into the VAM-5 series. This is a pretty interesting one, hard to place. It has the die clashing noted on the reverse, but none of the obverse clash artifacts. The "starburst" polishing stuff at the wingtips of the "original" 5A, but far later die cracks, ones which don't appear to show up until 5C. This is a progression which could be better delineated at VAMworld, I think. I'd like to hear the opinion of @messydesk on the die state, if only for my own education.

That mark on the cheek may or may not be a killer, depending on how deep it is. The rest of the coin is probably worth a 66.

 

This may even be a Vam 5 D now reading the progression of the vam 5 makes sense.....also the die crack and chip in first 8 makes sense

 

it's not a 5D either

 

5D seems to be the closest die state.

 

Ah, that's a bad break. I'm liking the coin, still, though. I think it otherwise plausibly could be a technical gem. But that's not just a death row swipe, it's like five days in the electric chair, it's so big. Saving it is, it's just a big swipe; I'm not seeing anything cutting, or digging into it.

 

83-CC VAM 5 is a bit of a "hot mess." The difference between 5C and 5D is the single vs. triple clash. The description of 5D says, "... and, on LDS specimens, die break rear of Phrygian cap below ribbon." I've probably tripped over this wording before with a coin like yours. Earlier die states of VAM 5D don't have the break, just the 3 clashes. In my opinion the break should be separate (with break would be 5E), but that's not the way it is now.

 

So is this a 5C? I'm seeing polished clashes where there shouldn't be. I'm not seeing multiple clashes either? Is it an early 5D?

 

I would call this a LDS of VAM 5C. Is there any trace of the 'st' clash remaining? While it may be tempting to say it's simply VAM 5, that confuses it with the earliest die stage.

 

Definite death sentence. The coin is otherwise attractive, and desirable as a variety (I am not into VAMs whatsoever, but understand the allure). However, the cheek hit is so prominent that any decent grade is gone--no way a 65 or even 64. I feel without the bump, it is an easy 65 PL, but with it? Lower end MS, or a TPG might even get harsh and say "damaged" MS details. Shame, but bad luck on the extremely prominent hit, on an otherwise very attractive coin.

 

I completely agree with your assessment. I hope that the hit is not as visible in hand as it is in the photos...but even so, it kills the coin.

 

That's what I thought, it's kind of an extreme contrast of beauty and ugliness. But you think the technical grade would be damaged? Or is that the market grade? That's why I posted this; it's a dichotomy of surface preservation. The fields and most of the cheek are a 66, and the one big hit is a details/60/? So how is a technical grade determined? What is the line between "hits" and "damage". Did we find it here? Have you seen some 1878 CCs? I guess one thing that's obvious is that it's not market acceptable. Or is it?

 

Take a look, it's hard to tell.

 

My take on the coin is that without the monster hit, it would have been a 65 PL. I don't see any 66 surfaces, but definitely 65. Given that the hit is "Grand Canyon" magnitude in a major focal area, I would drop it two grades to a 63 PL. However, I have seen coins with hits like that body bagged by TPGs as details. It is a really attractive coin with a very unattractive feature. I would go with the 63PL, and pass on buying the coin, due to major surface contact. Then again, a grader with a woody against the coin could "details" it very easily, even though it is premium uncirculated.

 

I dunno if we should conclusively judge based on one image. Yes, I can plainly see that there's something going on there, but the only part that obviously alarms me is the mouth-ear scratch. The huge black gouge above that could be 80% contrast from a frost break, or it could be a blow from an axe murderer. One image lit from one angle is not definitive.