another ugly MS66 Morgan

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1118&Lot_No=8306#Photo

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

u still havent learnt how to grade thats a 76 on a 100 point scale

 

While I agree with you based off the pictures there is still the inhand analysis. I have seen some 66's where they had a few more bag marks than I expected, but the luster was just so frosty I could see why they graded it 66. Some of the 66's I might take a chance on, but certainly not this one. Then again this is why they say buy the coin not the holder.

 

A lot of it also has to do with lighting... look at the same coin under fluorescent light versus incandescent, under fluorescent the coin will look a lot worse.

 

I've never understood the grading of MS coins, and the higher the grade, the less I understand. For example, I've compared modern commems and ASEs that are graded in the range of MS64-66 and they seem to have far fewer obvious marks than the same grades for morgan and peace dollars. It seems older coins get looser treatment from grading companies.

 

I am able to make my Morgans look frosty such as this one like a lot of you can. I just use my florescent lamp I have, and look at the coin under there

 

market grading, not technical grading

 

Sometimes the photos can make distractions or blemishes look much worse than they really are. Here is an example from my collection. The photo makes you wonder how this coin got the MS66 grade, but the distraction on the cheek is not nearly as bad when you view the coin in hand.




I am sure the coin in the OP probably looks much nicer than the photo. Having said that, it is also very likely that the surfaces of the coin are MS65 and the superb strike, luster, and eye appeal bumped the grade to MS66.

 

I don't see how it could make a 66 with that kind of toning....

Really, I think yours is a much clearer coin. I'm beginning to thing the heritage cameras are not good for Morgans.


Ruben

 

66, no. Beautiful coin, IMHO, yes. (Lehigh's is nicer though IMHO. That toning is sharp and intense. :thumb

Phoenix

 

Ruben,

You know darn well that the TPG's do not share your opinion of toning and attractive toning will never detrimentally affect the assigned grade. This following coin is graded MS68 (rusty pot).



With regards to Heritage photos. They are really hit or miss. They have the ability to take phenomenal photos, but don't have the time to ensure quality. It is my belief that your coin gets one shot at the photo stand and the result is what it is. They don't take photos over because it came out bad. They need to keep the assembly line moving to get all of the coins photographed. I don't know this for sure, but would explain why some photos are awesome and others stink.

 

My only explanation for it is that it toned in the slab. But I fixed it...

 

Doug,

Other than the obvious fact that the photographic quality of the last two coins far exceeds the photographic quality of the first two coins, I will give it a shot.

The first coin appears to be either PL or semi PL with a clean focal areas. The cheek only has a few minor distractions. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to comment on the luster, strike, or eye appeal of this coin given that photo.

The second coin is most likely a DMPL with slight haziness in the fields. The cheek is very clean but there are some distractions on the nose and neck that limit the grade of the obverse. Still a solid 66 IMO. I am sure this is an impressive coin in hand despite the rather poor photo.

The third coin is rather eye appealing due to booming luster and a sharp strike. Although the focal areas including the cheek are not nearly as clean as the first two coins, I have no problem with this coin in a MS66 holder even if the CAC won't sticker it.

The last coin is problematic. There are just too many distractions for this coin to reside in an MS66 holder. The strike and luster rival that of coin number 3 and I do like the peripheral toning, but the number of marks on the cheek, neck, and fields are just too much for me. I hate to admit it, but I think NGC overgraded this coin. Personally, I wouldn't even classify this as a PQ 65.

With regards to overall trends, I hope you are not going to tell me that the first two were graded years ago and the last two were graded recently which shows a loosening in NGC's standards over the years. Because if you are, I will say that it is not a big enough sample size to reach that conclusion. However, that might just be a mind trick because of the photos.

Paul

 

Sometimes a break in the luster differs from bag marks. Variations in luster should not count against a coin as much as bag marks and ticks.

 

This must mean that the first two coins you showed must be in the MS-68+ range by now.

 

maybe

 

Doubtful,

If the photographs were of better quality, you would see the obvious distractions that made the coin a 66 in the first place.