this is a legitimate question guys,so please bear with me. i went on ngc's site and clicked on the eliasberg us collection. it shows examples of some rare and valuble coins.one is an 1891-cc morgan graded ms-68 pl. if you look at the photo of the coin,there are strange looking spots of what i can only describe as discoloration on both the obverse and reverse. i admit to being not real knowledgable about grading but i don't understand how a coin with these marks can grade that high. i know uncirculated does not always mean shiny and i know how coins can be wrongly cleaned to make them look new. i can't help thinking that if i submitted a common date morgan to ngc that looked like that it would be bodybagged. would like to learn more about grading but maybe i just don't have the knack. still enjoy coins nonetheless.
It might be graded a little high due to the fact that it is an Eliasberg coin. PCGS and NGC are known to overgrade some for famous collections and collectors such as Eliasberg
The coin is heavily toned with some light toning in a few areas , but I see no spotting. Also both PCGS and NGC grade rare coins a touch higher then common dates since there are so few in existence. Plus the surfaces are pristine with barely a mark on them.( Attached image for discussion.)
What you are calling discoloration is toning - completely natural to find it on a coin of that age. It's also a sign of originality - which means the coin has not been cleaned or dipped. (It is quite unusual to find Morgan dollars that have not been dipped.) And if you could see the coin in person, you would be amazed at the amount of luster that shows thru that toning. It just doesn't show up in the picture very well.
This brings into question a very interesting point regarding grading. You cannot assume that everybody uses the same grading standards. I have said before, and will conitnue, the PCGS, NGC, old AccuGrade, etc, "standards" are not the same as the ANA Standards for grading. This is why there is such a variance in grade assignments. I have noticed that most people who are familiar with "slabbed" coins will grade in accordance with the PCGS Standards. Most of these TPG Standards are based on the ANA Standards for grading. "There is disagreement, even amongst the experts." Why is this? Is it because of the subjectiveness that is inherent in grading and appraising? Or is it actually due to the objectiveness of the standard used? I believe that the variance arises from the objectiveness of the grading standard. Within each standard there is a set of "rules" or "guidelines" that must be objectively followed. To slide one of these guidelines either way is simply unethical. Then, you have more subjective "rules" or "guidelines" where the opinion of the grader comes into play. I have alluded before regarding this issue. For instance, in accordance with the ANA Standards, any coin that is graded in a Mint State higher than 66 must have the original color, not "natural" color. Judging by the grades assigned by PCGS on, let's say, 1893 BN IHC MS67, it is obvious that this portion of the ANA Standards was not adopted by PCGS. And this is fine because, as far as I know, PCGS no longer alludes to using or being "in compliance" with ANA Standards for Grading. However, this could become confusing for a new collector. And when veteran collectors allude to grades and grading without referencing the "standard" being used, then the new collector is not going to know that there are a number of different, yet similar, grading standards out there. If it is brown or red/brown, toned, discolored, or otherwise not in the original color it was when it originally left the press, even if the fields and devices are perfect and flawless, it could not grade higher than Mint State 66. If it is not in the state it was when it left the mint, then it is post-minting damage. This does not mean that something like attractive toning would not command a premium above the normal market price for the grade, but "beauty" (subjectiveness) cannot raise an object above the objective state. The objective "rule" or "guideline" is the absolute authority above subjective opinion. Without the objective "rules", then one could not count on the grading to be exempt from unethical behavior. I guess to put it all in one sentence: Some graders are more conservative and strict than others. Just as a note, one could consider that the circulated states are fairly standard amongst the respectable TPGs and pretty much are ANA compliant. Within ANA standards for Mint State coins, you have the two extremes, MS60 and MS70 (barely MS and perfectly MS) and three categories between: MS61-MS63 - Below Average, generally acceptable with regards to eye appeal, but contain detractions within the prime focal areas, colors can range from original to harshly oxidated, or even have a fingerprint and artificial treatment; MS64-MS66 - Average, generally collectable specimens, can have original color or attractive toning, scattered or small marks and/or hairlines are common, a few of which may be present in the prime focal areas; and MS67-MS69 - Above Average, collectable and investment quality specimens, must have original color, no toning or other detractions, any contact marks must be miniscule at best and limited to only a couple, with no hairlines visible, furthermore, in these grades, the eye appeal must be exceptional. In my opinion, no coin should be bought for purely "investment" purposes. Numismatics is a hobby as well as a journey. But do not expect to make money from it. A coin that may one day grade MS67-MS69, I do have the opinion (in accordance with ANA Standards), may degrade to the MS64-MS66 range if it becomes oxidated and turns color. Since the TPGs are "in the business" to "promote investment in rare coins" (as PCGS so proudly states), then it is no wonder that an item like toning would be excluded from their standards. How about someone from the PCGS side?
DP - I think you have some bad information. There is not one single coin listed in the ANA grading guide, any edition from the 1st to the 6th, where it says that the coin must have original color - for any grade. And there is no place else in the book where it says it either. What it does say for grades MS66 and up is that the coin must have full original luster. That's not the same thing as color. So, even by stricly following the ANA syandards, a toned coin can be graded as even MS70 as long it meets the criteria. The only way that toning can detract from the grade of a coin is if it adversely affects eye appeal. And when it comes to experts disagreeing on the grade of a coin, it quite often comes down to eye appeal. For eye appeal is the single most subjective grading criteria used. And at the same time, it is one of the most important. Some say THE most important.
There was an article on the PCGS web site a year or so ago which did state that hypothetically, any coin which showed ANY signs of TONING could not grade higher than MS-66 or PR-66. A coin must have completely original surfaces ( and toning is obviously not original) and very few other problems to grade MS-67. It went on to say that due to 'market grading' this was an unrealistic standard and was therefore not followed by any major TPG.
If the author's name was Weimar White, I would believe that there was such an article. I would also ignore it, as do most others who study numismatics. In the study of numismatics, a toned coin is considered to have original surfaces.
I know you have more numismatic experience than I, GD, but that's only because you're older However, the ANA Standards, Fifth Edition, states: I personally believe "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", thus I put silver coins (Morgans and such) in the same boat as coppers with MS grades and toning. I would relent with regards to silver and other coins that are highly active chemically, but the coppers are an absolute. If it's not red, it's not above MS66. The color must be original. With regards to toning, all of us that are experienced know full well how toning can cover up certain detractions that would otherwise be immediately noticeable. This in itself is not reason to "automatically" place toned coins down to MS66, but it is rather good justification, in my opinion. Like I said, there are a number of grading standards out there that are used without qualification. One person will say MS67 when referring to someone else's MS66. PCGS vs. ANA is a prime example in this. PCGS Standard do not require original color for +MS66 copper, while the ANA Standard does. And this is also another reason I do not personally use the TPGs. Not because they don't grade exactly according to the same standard I do, but because they do not give the individual a qualification for the coin. For instance, the copper MS67 BN. I would not consider something without original mint color to be that close to "perfect as minted". A designation and grade should be "MS66 BN Sharp struck" or "MS66 BN, MS67 Details", but not MS67. Of course, you can always disagree, but I won't put my money into a supposedly MS67 brown copper. Or even any toned metal content past MS66. Toning is a type of deterioration. And there is no guarantee that attractive toning is going to stay that way indefinitely. Unless you try to alter the coin, toning is irreversible. Some is attractive, some is not. In that regard also, the attractiveness of the toning is subjective. One person will like the toning; another may not care much for it, but not see it as detracting from the coin either; and, yet another may see the toning as ugly, detractive, and devaluing the coin. One coin, three opinions. No copper coin that is not red can grade higher than MS66. And, in my opinion, the same standard toward color oriniginality should apply to all coins, regardless of chemical activeness. If there are exceptions to the grade, such as attractive toning, exceptional strike, etc, then it should be noted along with the grade in order to command the premium, but not bumped up into the next category just because the price fits. That's getting a bit too Sheldon for me.
You are correct, I stand corrected on the issue regarding copper being original color for grades MS67 and above - according to the ANA standards.
That's where I'd put the emphasis... the only time color is mentioned as a deciding factor in grading according to the ANA guide is with copper coins. It says nothing else about color as far as determining grade, only luster, when talking about non-copper coins. It may very well be your opinion that color should be a deciding factor with other coins too... but it's not the ANA's opinion. Feel free to start up your own grading service with that as a standard, but expect any coins that you won't give above MS-66 to because of the color that otherwise would merit the grade to get broken out and submitted to someone else, lol. In the 6th edition they state it this way about MS-67, on page 24 (emphasis mine of course): It's this reference to color of copper coins that prevents TPG's from guaranteeing the grade of copper coins. Since the slabs are not airtight they can't guarantee that the color won't change, and since color is a decifing factor of the grade amongst copper coins above MS-66, they can't guarantee that the grade won't go down after time. However since color has nothing to do with the grade for non-copper coins, they have no problem guaranteeing the grades of those. The ANA further states, on page 34 of the 6th edition (again emphasis mine): Seems pretty clear that the ANA's opinion is that color only affects the grade with copper and bronze coins, and is only a deciding factor above MS-66. Whatever you might think about what the standard should be, that's what they say the standard is. Of course any grader is free to use or not use ANA standards if they choose, but they won't have a very marketable service if they don't, whether they overgrade based on ANA standards, or they undergrade based on those standards. Color will not likely be used as a deciding factor for non-copper coins as long as the ANA doesn't say it should be, amongst any graders that want to keep their reputation as an accurate grading service based on ANA standards.
