GTG - 1881 S Morgan

In a PCGS holder. The obverse looks much nicer in hand. My iPad nailed the reverse photo.

I liked the strike through wood chip above the eagle on the reverse.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@Morgandude11 I started looking at more MS Morgans. There is quite a particular look MS coins have that AU ones don't.

 

5+ from the pics. Looks like it just missed PL though

 

Ill go 65 but, seems like PCGS coulda removed the PVC contamination on the obverse. (?)

Edit: i guess it could have developed AFTER slabbing (huge turnoff imo) id flip that coin if it were me

 

Pretty coin. Very solid strike. Solid 65+ high in grade. knocking on the door of 66.

 

Strike: 66

Luster: 66 (I'm having to guess at this as the photos show it a little flat, but that is due to the lighting)

Eye Appeal: 63 (Due to the splotchiness on the obverse and what looks like PVC below Anna's hair)

Surface Condition: 66 obverse 66 reverse Net 66

Overall grade: I think it's in a solid 65 holder. Some conservation would probably bring it to a solid 66.

 

If you are claiming that the obverse looks better in hand, then I'm going MS66. My first impression was a high end 65 with muted luster.

 

Strike: 65
Luster: 64
Eye appeal: 64
Contact marks: 66

The coin looks remarkably mark free in these pictures. I can't really get a feel for the luster, but if you say that the reverse image is very accurate, I'll trust you. That means the luster on this coin is not great (good, not great). When we start to talk about 65 versus 66, the eye appeal and luster play a very large role. On a 65, the hazy, cloudy, spotty obverse are acceptable. They do not belong on a 66 coin.

Because of that, I'm going to guess 65 on this one. My opinion may change with different pictures.

 

This grading by breakdown is ridiculous imo... K.I.S.S! I suppose it's a good tool to use when learning how to grade overall but if it were to be put into practice by PCGS & NGC (it won't be) God help us all

 

That's primarily the lighting used I believe plus if it does have nice PL or full DMPL mirrors there would be no luster

 

Why not? I think it would provide a window into why the TPGs grade the way that they do. And we aren't asking them to provide the analysis that you see here. All we want is the grade on the front label like it currently is with the 4 element grades on the reverse in very small print, like this.

S-65 L-64 EA-64 CM-66

I really don't see how that would create any problems.

 

Simply put, it convolutes a hobby that strives to more easily attract new collectors not to mention it will severely slow down the TPGs. If you think wait times are bad now, you aint seen nothing if they were to implement this.

 

The TPG's job is to create a stable market for coins based on consumer confidence in their ability to correctly grade coins, not dumb things down to attract newbies. If providing a higher level of detail with respect to their grading can instill more confidence in their customers, it improves the hobby.

Also, I don't think it would slow them down much at all. They are already evaluating the coins elements of grading in their head anyway, all we are doing is asking them to write them down. Plus, I don't think they would even need to include this on moderns or coins submitted using the economy tiers which aren't typically severely market graded in the first place.

I know that as a collector of high end coins that usually have attractive toning, I would welcome more information as to how they arrived at their final grade.

 

Honestly, as much as I would like to see this SLEC scale used at a TPG, I realize that is a pipe dream.

I use it here on the forums as a teaching tool, and to open up discussion about how to grade, what I'm looking at, and why I think the coin is graded the way it is. If other members adopt the same style, we can more effectively communicate about the coin in the post.

 

Their job is to create revenue, period. And they're doing a damn good job of it already. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

 

MS66 - have you VAMmed it yet TC?

 

I have not. I did not see anything interesting, other than die polish lines.

 

Anyhoo, I guess I did okay for $59. Is a dip/acetone going to help the obverse at all? The reverse is really spectacular.

 

I'm not asking the TPG's to do this. But with this being a forum, I find it a very useful tool not only to the OP but other members who may be just learning how to grade. Not every member needs to do the break down, but a couple members doing it does help. I know when I first started to learn to grade, I was told to just look at a lot of coins. That works, but there are still the "why's" to be answered. This analysis helps to answer some of those why's.

 

I'm glad I scrolled down, I would have called it a 65 all day.

Does the obverse have pvc residue, or is this the result of thumbing? This sort of looks like a classic example of thumbing to me, but I don't see what they may have been attempting to hide.