I was looking through upcoming auctions and came across this coin 1883 O ICG MS 65 Morgan So somewhere near the beginning of the ANA grading standards Ms65 is described as "An attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. May have small or scattered contact marks, or 2 larger marks. One or two small patches of hairlines. Noticeable light scuff marks on the high points of the design, and here's the important part. Overall quality is above average and eye appeal is very pleasing I don't want to rag on ICG, because I have seen some pretty ugly coins graded as 65 or above by all of the major TPG's (Actually have a few that I can't seem to get rid of.)And I really like toned coins, but in my opinion a coin this ugly should never really see a Gem grade. I would think that no matter how nice a coin is and how talented a grader is, how do you call this coin a 65. Thoughts? Or if you have some dark nasty toned coins that made a gem grade feel free to post pics.
This one is actually not that bad. At least the toning is fairly consistent on that side. The ones with splotchy or spotty toning are the ones people really avoid.
Well preference to start with some people love toned coins but imo there not grading the toning their grading the coin underneath (which can hard depending on toning) the toning is just added it seems for u take or leave. Iv seen really high grade coins with ugly toning that I never own, but they managed to get good grade. Classic Case of buy the coin not the slab i guess...
That coin looks like it was torched or something. I have coins that have that "black" on parts, but having it on the whole thing... looks like environmental damage. Edit: I want to know what's the advantage to covering the serial number on the back.
But the coin underneath still has negative eye appeal, which is one of the things that is supposed to determine gem+ grades. MS is a measure of wear, but over 65 the coin is supposed to have good-great luster and eye appeal. That was more my point.
In a perfect world it would. Bottom line its damage, but then again light dips, contact marks, and lots of other things are damage as well. The answer to the OP will always be in the eyes of the TPG, and in the end in the eyes of the buyer. This one of many reasons why no two coins are ever alike, and the notion of two 65's being alike is laughable on its face. A TPG grade should always only be a PART of a purchase decision. Chris
The reverse seems like 65, the obverse is hard to tell because of the light so I'm not going to say much about it without seeing it in hand which unfortunately will never happen I don't see to many hits and marks The toning is ugly though As far as MS being wear or eye appeal I guess its hard to make that call because i would say the number is how clean the coin is in relation to hits. But i theory it should have the right luster too. If you say that though this coin would be like a 60 though as the is little to no luster
"So do you think that the person who buys a coin has to know how to grade coins?" Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t195831/#ixzz1fGDPd14J The person who buys the coin should know how to grade. TGP grade is good but you always have to make your own decision based on your knowledge.
First, TPG's don't follow ANA grading standards, they have their own. So you're going to run into some problems if you try applying ANA standards to TPG graded coins. PCGS's policy (and I believe NGC's is very similar) is. http://www.pcgs.com/eyeappeal.html There are three important things to note 1- That PCGS has 7 levels of eye appeal, 2- that toning is only one aspect of the overall eye appeal. And, the technical grade won't be negatively affected until you reach the below average, negative, or ugly level. At the below average level, at most 1/4th of a point can be deducted from the technical grade. At the negative level up to 1 point can be deducted, and the final level (ugly) can result in a 2 point deduction or even a no-grade. So, a coin with a technical grade of 65, with strong luster, and below average, or even negative toning could still receive the 65 grade. I know you didn't mention PCGS specifically, but their standards are indicative of market grading (which is how most TPG's grade). For the coin in question, it's hard to tell exactly how dark the toning is from the Teletrade pics, but it appears close to the terminal state. I could easily see how the coin made a 65 though. It appears very clean, I see a few light hits, but not many. The strike is about average, maybe even a little above average for the '83 O. And as long as the luster isn't badly impaired by the toning, I think 65 is accurate. I see some dark greens and blues along with purple throughout the toning, so I think it might even be fairly attractive in hand (but, that's a personal opinion), and overall I'd agree most people (including the TPG's) are critical of dark toning.
Toning aside I think ICG actually did alright on this one. The fields and raised features are significantly unmarred. A lot of the unreputable TGP's will slab "clean cheek" AU's as better MS grades, but this is not the case here.
I think the thing here is how one defines ugly. I have seen thousands of toned coins that I thought were ugly as a mud fence, but plenty of others thought they were gorgeous. That part's never gonna change. That said I do understand the OP's point, and to a large degree do not disagree with it. But then I also believe that coins with large die cracks, and many of the different striking errors should never be graded above MS64 either. For how can a coin with a flaw that serious be considered a Gem ?
I have a problem with the above definition of an MS65. If a coin is essentially perfect, but not eye-appealing, I don't see why it shouldn't grade 65 or higher. Under that definition, such a coin would grade MS64 or lower. I think unattractive and/or environmental damage-like toning can and should negatively impact a coin's grade. But I don't think unattractive toning should automatically limit a coin to a grade lower than MS65 (or even MS66 or 67).
