GTG: 1883 Morgan Dollar

64PL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Okay, a few facts for people who are not that familiar with PL Morgans, which this is. First, there are two types of PL and DMPL Morgans—those with a deep cameo effect, and those that are extremely reflective, with more of a satiny finish, and tons of frost. This is the latter-it is extremely satiny, and at the same time, has deep mirrors. Second, these type of coins DO NOT fall into a “count the bagmarks” situation. The slightest nick, contact mark, luster break, or toning marks are grossly exaggerated by the extremely reflective surfaces. Based on my considerable experience with Morgans, this coin is grossly undergraded. The majority that had it at 64 to 65 are, in my opinion, quite correct. In hand, the coin shows beautifully. Also, without doing videos, it is virtually impossible to photograph them and capture the coin accurately. I did the best I could, given the circumstances. This coin should be a 65, but I am sending it to New Jersey for the bean. It is certain to get a green bean, and IMHO, likely to get a gold one. That would vindicate undergraded, far more than a resubmit to PCGS. Third, as regards dipping, that would remove a lot of the desirable frost. If one does not like the toning (I do like it), don’t buy it, as it would destroy the satin surfaces of this PL coin.

Here ya go with the reveal. Totally insane in terms of grade:

 

63 is quite low but still a nice specimen.

 

Thanks for the good info for those of us who don't know Morgans as much!!

 

It is crazy. I would have gone 64+ to 65.

 

Close-up of the cheek: no gouges, slashes, minimal contact. Luster breaks, and frost, plus reflections of toning. Die polish effect on the cheek.

 

This coin is way low for the grade. It’s better than a lot of 64’s that I’ve seen and even better than some 65’s. Go for the bean.

 

Without seeing the slab I was at MS 63. PL hard to tell when not in hand but, it could be. A coin doesn't have to have heavy marks to be graded low. There are to many grazes on the obverse to give it a higher grade. I've seen a lot of coins that I've wondered why they were given a low or high grade. This one has a great strike and frost and probably a nice flash because it's a PL but, there are just to many grazes to grade higher. I would expect it to receive a green bean. Still a very nice coin.

 

Here is a typical MS 63 PL Morgan Dollar for comparison. Not even remotely in the same ballpark. MS 63s in a Prooflike state are always quite baggy, which the 1883 is most certainly not.

 

I'm shocked that coin only got a 63. That coin is a 65 all day long.

 

At 63PL, it’s graded very solidly if not short changed. It deserves a shot with CAC. Good luck!

 

PL-65 field is pretty clean, breast feathers look good. great looking coin congrats

 

63 short and sweet. No PL and certainly not DMPL...doesn't appear to have nearly enough reflectivity in the way they measure it for these designations. Still, an attractive, ice-cold frosty Morgan.

 

You didn’t read the reveal, or the long explanation—I give up here. Nobody wants to learn anything about Morgans. I’ve been wasting my time, trying to educate, against every half-baked opinion out there. GTSs are supposed to be learning experiences. Oh well, have a good time, folks, and play nice!

 

Yes, I hate to see it when these grades suffer for just luster grazes. I know others may disagree, pointing to the volume and location of the grazes, but I tend to look at it like this. Supposing those grazes were dipped out, which could easily be done. Is there any question this same grader wouldn't up this grade by one, even two grades? I think it's a cinch for that, as there's hardly nothing on it. And that's what they don't consider.

I'd personally just let it alone. Were I to sell it, I'm asking 64/65, as there's no way I'm letting some sharpie bidder take my 63 and flip it into a 64/65. If that's going to happen, I'm making it happen, not somebody else.

 

Oh my! I understand what you are saying I why but please don’t dump me into the “Nobody wants to learn” group. I have learn a lot from your GTG coins.

I said a solid 65. No PL, just 65. I believe the coin is highly underrated and I hope you do something about it.

 

The problem with the satiny finished PL coins, as opposed to the more cameo ones is that the satin finished ones actually can suffer from a dip. A good enough dip to remove the luster grazes can make the coin have a “dead” look, and can remove a lot of the lovely attractive frost. So, what we need is more consistent grading—not the 15 second judgements that go along with TPG grading. This grader who did this coin clearly knows nothing about grading Morgans, obviously. Grading is neither series specific, nor is it using a particular comparative standard anymore. I think half of the graders would rather see the striated, baggy, beat up looking Morgan Prooflike, and just call them 65 arbitrarily. Obviously, it is not on a standardized or comparative basis at all.

 

I agree 100%. That's why I wouldn't touch it. They'll grade it higher, though, they're just that clueless.

 

AU 55 The coin looks like hell although the definition is sharp. There appears to be some brockage on the obverse south-west of profile and even east.

 

Who is the "You..." that you were posting/replying to...? It didn't say, but your lament to "You..." was directly under my comments...made before the reveal...and I did read the reveal. Based on the photos, I just couldn't see enough reflectivity (looks too frosty) from what I knew of how that's done for grading (if it's REALLY done that way all the time), to go with a PL.