GTG 1883 Morgan Dollar- Beautifully Toned

I think I was a bit high in grade as a 65, but 62? No way—undergraded. At the very minimum 63, with a bump to 64 for color. It is not that baggy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd absolutely agree I'm just trying to not over hype myself lol

 

63. Nice if you like toning; awful if you don't. I'm a blast white collector myself.

 

What I see in the true views is a coin that was considered a slider. I think that there is enough evidence of high point wear, but not enough to call it an AU.
This is a slider in my opinion.
But still purdy and well worth 62 or 63 money.

 

@LuxUnit, that's an honest technical grade on it, but my emotions say it will market a lot higher than that. That's one very romantic little lady you got there.

 

I would disagree. I see some bag marks under the toning, but no slight wear. The 63 grade is entirely appropriate, and I think a bump to 64 would have been certainly warranted. Not an AU coin—I have owned many like that, grading in the 63-65 range.

 

+1

When I see coins with color like this that don't get any color bump by PCGS, my normal assumption is that the luster is inhibited by the color and the associated flash and eye appeal that normally accompanies such color is diminished.

 

It's a 62 grade and there are not enough bag marks to condemn this to a 62.
PCGS must have seen something that kept it from a higher grade.

 

Yes, muted luster. And we are judging by a photograph. In hand, there very well might be enough marks to condemn it to a 62. My first impression of the surfaces was high 62 low 63. I understand that your contention is that the coin is an MS63 and was net graded to MS62 because of high point wear, but I disagree.

 

I think PCGS just blew it. They overgrade sometimes, but just as frequently undergrade. Luster would be impossible to determine by photographs of the toned obverse. I see nothing to prevent the high end 63, with a bump to 64 for color. I see it as an NGC star coin.

 

On the second set of pics I put it at 64.
Merely for the toning. At a 63 I think is what the market can handle.
The 62 says there is something we can't see. It could be that some marks are harsher than we can see maybe luster. In that case then if the luster is the reason then is that because of a dip?
Or could it be that the coin was pocketed and in turn helped mute the luster?

We should pick one, either are plausible.

 

I’m in agreement though late to the party. I thought technical 63 and color to 64. The reverse is clean too. I’d be really tempted to try and either cross it to ngc or send for reconsideration. Though in hand I might feel different. It’s a beautiful coin

 

I’d go for the cross at NGC, and try to get the star. To me, as a Morgan collector, I would always be motivated by * coins, with beautiful toning. I might even bet that NGC would cross it at 63+*. It is that beautiful a coin.

 

@Lehigh96 @Pickin and Grinin @Morgandude11
I don't think luster is the issue. Here's a video showing the obverse which is the lesser of the two. Also sorry it took so long, I don't know why but every time I made a gif or upload the video the colors change and the video compresses to lesser quality.

 

Definitely undergraded. No luster issues—full luster. Minimum 63, with a likelihood of 64. Would definitely green bean, and if crossed to NGC, I would bet on a star. I don’t see that coin as lower—it just is not that baggy. The only thing baggy is the beautiful mint bag toning.

 

+1

Doesn’t look like a luster issue, they were really tough on this coin. I would expect MS63* or MS64* from NGC. Plus I think toned coins look better against the white insert of NGC.

 

Disregard my post.

 

From the first set of pictures, it looked like a 65. If you’d read what I said along with my opinion, I said that most of those bag toned beautiful Morgans fall into the 63-65 range.

 

Nice of you to use her coin for your icon. Classy. Shows her you love her as much

 

Oh yea, it has so much more meaning than just a coin. It's easily my favorite