1894 Morgan Guess The Grade

I was not rude. You are angry. I am not even in disagreement with you. I know it doesn't matter, but you really have hurt my feelings. Nothing I wrote should have caused this hostile outbreak and attack. I am used to dealing with professionals, and internet forums are somewhat new to me. You can attack my position, if you want, but why attack my person?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That’s why the term “AU64” for those sliders.

 

MS63.55

 

Nice Morgan. I’m at 64. Maybe 64+

 

I love your coin. I only have about 20 morgans, most of them from my father and, except for here, I have never seen a nicer coin. I'm sure there are and I probably missed others that were posted.

 

Post the grade and end the tease and bickering. Maybe the moderator can establish a rule that in instances where someone posts a coin under the heading GTG, the grade must be revealed within, say 48 hours from time posted.

 

The grade has already been revealed like yesterday its an AU58.

 

Sorry, I missed it.

 

Which part of what I wrote was "numismatically unsound"? I am open to learning where the ANA standard is wrong or fails to address mumismattically sound principles. I think the OP would be helped a great deal in also learning these principles that are not part of the ANA standard or ammends the ANA standard.

 

How would you had graded it?

 

I looked for the revelation but I still can't find it, no big deal.
I already posted my opinion of the grade in an earlier post, which, like everybody else's, is based on the single photo provided. I evaluated the 1894 Morgan in question as MS-64.

 

NICE,,,,,64

 

I'll answer that one generally. You should never take ANA standards literally. Take the statement you referenced, that AU58s are better than MS65s. Sometimes that's yes, sometimes it's no. Let's see the coin, then I'll tell you. Only a blundering nitwit would make a broad, categorical statement like that.

And let me tell you one other thing. Grading standards weren't invented by ANA. They weren't invented, period. For Circulated grades, all ANA did was grouped some grades coincidental with levels of circulation wear for us. They're the ones responsible for that hierarchy we grade by, but that's it. Do you collect sports cards, antique watches, U.S. notes, stamps, fossils, comic books, ad nauseam? Condition. That's the criteria, the technical grade. We don't need ANA to tell us that for coins. And for Uncirculated, all we're grading on is bag marks and luster, principally, those two are the main criteria because presumptively there's no wear on these.

Some prolific genius, and I'll not mention who because he was a member, said to me in another forum, were everything else equal, he'd actually pay more for a coin direct from the Mint than one he got in circulation. Now, understand this, same exact MS grade. Why? Because the latter was in circulation. That made a difference to this idiot dealer who purports to teach us how to grade. If you don't get what I'm saying, here, you missed the boat, entirely. Collect stamps.

And nothing personal. Just hate idiots like this. That's why a guy like Wexler is a gem, just as an example. I can name others, as well as others of the idiots, but I shan't. Good enough answer?

 

Wow what a bold,well said and long response was that you or your jockey talking

 

Sometimes we need to get our heads out of our horse's azz, what can I say?

 

That is not what the statement says, but it the result of the standard, in that AU58s can be more prestine than MS65s. I have actually seen that often. The standard doesn't say anything about blundering nitwits. It speaks about grading coins through an articulated standard that uses objective and measurable end points. The ANA is not an external force applying its standards on others. It is the representive of American numismatics and has no existence outside that roll. It's members are people like those on this forum, and it drws its expertise from such coin collectors. The standard is repeated to me from dealers all the time when evaluating coins. It is a concensus. If you don't agree with it, that is fine and your right as a free man, but it doesn't mean that grading is best done without reference to the standard, and without regard to consensus. Grading without a measurable and articulated standard is a fool errand, IMO.

FWIW - this is the ANA's guild for morgans

https://www.money.org/morgan-dollar-coin-grading

 

Well I want to write my own grading standards, I think my coin identifies as a
MS-85. Hehe I can’t imagine what that would be worth.

In all seriousness though, grading is tough. I just simply enjoy coins and I would love to have perfect coins, but I also need food lol. So I enjoy/settle for decent looking coins for what I can get my hands on. It is for the love of the hobby. This 1894 is a tough date and there are flaws, but it is mine and looks superb even for the grade it received. Do I think I got lucky, why certainly. It could have easily graded UNC details or AU details. So I take it as a win ultimately.

 

It is a good catch. Why do you think the coin is damaged so that it would get a details grade?

 

Well the rim nicks, I wasn’t sure how they would take that at PCGS.