1880 O Morgan. What does it grade?

at first glance i thought it was a 65 as well, but something about what looks like rim marks on the nose would make me want to drop it a point if i was grading it

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

64+ no pl

 

Isn't PCGS generally a bit tighter than NGC? Although I guess it depends (on the day, weather and what color shirt the guy is wearing). I will stick with MS-64 or MS-64+. For your sake I hope it does not grade this way ($ ).

 

That's a coin I will probably never have in my Morgan collection but here's an NGC 1900-O in MS64 and yours is obviously much better... (my coin - not my pics)

 

Here is my own 1880o. It is a PCGS MS 64, and the OP's coin is a lot better. Look at all the marks on the obverse of this one:

 

Is it a $25k coin in 65?

I can see why they might not grade it then, but, man, that sure looks like a 65 to me.

Big enough upside to warrant a few trips, by my estimation.

Hope it happens for you, Matt.

 

If it came back as an AU, there's wear somewhere on the coin.

 

That is the problem I have with grading Morgans, is it wear or weakly struck. I sent coins in to be regraded that were marked AU58 and they came back MS63 or MS62. This spring I sent in a 1888-s that came back cleaned so I cracked the coin out of the holder and sent the same coin back in about a month later and the same coin came back MS62. When it comes to grading, if you don't get the grade you want and feel the coin is graded wrong, try sending the coin back in. I only do this if the coins value will increase enough to justify the cost of the regrade. The coin that this thread is about is such a great coin that I would send it in again as its value really increases in ms65. Jim

 

Wear.

The criteria for a coin to make a BU grade, which is MS60 - 62 it can have no traces of wear. Same with CU, GU, etc.

 

The dealer sold me this coin for all of MS63 money.... I thought he was crazy... but I didn't argue. So the coin still has room for several trips and if it does no better then 64 there is still profit left in it at that grade.

 

With all due respect, that is not even close to true. You can (and will) find coins up to at least 65 with some high-point wear (e.g. cabinet friction). Now field wear is a different story entirely, and even TPGs are not very lenient in this regard.

All of the above IMO & respectfully submitted...Mike

 

Yeaher right!

Any coin with an MS grade with even the slightest amount of wear, no doubt was slid into the MS grade range, and IMO does not belong there.

FYI, what I posted is directly from the ANA Grading Standards of U.S. Coins, not my opinion.

NFN, but can YOU distinguish with 100% accuracy or any degree of certainty what caused the wear, i.e. between cabinet friction(as you call it), roll friction, pocket friction?

If the TPGs can't, I doubt anyone could.

 

Here is the OP's 1880 o side by side with another auction house's coin that is currently for sale that is a 64. I see a big difference in favor of the OP coin.

 

The question is NOT what the ANA/you would grade the coin, but rather what the TPGs would grade it. If you ask Matt, the OP, I'm sure he would agree....

That said, I cannot distinguish between the two types of wear authoritatively any more than you or anyone else can -- I only suggested what I think is a good working definition in the eyes of the TPGs.

Again, please don't confuse what "should be" with what "is". One is a value judgement (right/wrong) and the other is a subjective analysis of how the TPGs grade with respect to wear and a working definition of the terms associated with that distinction. Apples and oranges, so to speak.

Lastly, I would appreciate it if you would drop the combative and cynical tone ("Yeah right"). I don't think I have done anything to deserve it as my disagreements with you have been worded respectfully. I would appreciate the same respect, and if I have misunderstood your tone I apologize.

Thanks....Mike

 

Wrong. Your statement was to what I posted regarding the criteria for an MS coin, and stating it was not even close to true. What I stated was exactly true and not my opinion but is written into the ANA grading standards for an MS coin. Look at the front pages of your Red Book where the those are listed. You will find that under the criteria for a coin to be MS60, if can have no traces of wear.

You can't have it both ways on this. If no one(you, me, anyone, which has to include TPGs) can not make that distinction with any degree of certainty, then there can be no working definition in anyone's eyes, including the TPGs.

What should be, is according to established standards that have been long accepted, and are still accepted by many.

 

This thread was started by Matt with (presumably) the intent of figuring out why PCGS didn't grade the coin 65.

The ANA grading standards have nothing to do with that, as much as you seem to want to have that discussion it simply is not relevant to the OP's question and intent as I understand it.

If you disagree, that's fair, but do take a look at who "liked" the post you disagree with.

 

My response, which you attempted to deflate as being untrue, was to another poster with a question about wear and MS grades, which is part of the discussion about Lost's coin regarding distinguishing between weak strikes and wear.

No one said it did have anything to do Lost's coin, and I'm not the one who started this discussion.

Yeaher, and? Your point is? Am I supposed to come onboard that train because the OP, Lost, liked your post?

Give me a break dude!

 

According to PCGS's grading standards, it is true:

[TABLE="class: servicetable, width: 758"]

[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]MS/PR-60[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]No wear. May have many heavy marks/hairlines, strike may not be full[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]MS/PR-61[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]No wear. Multiple heavy marks/hairlines, strike may not be full[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]MS/PR-62[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]No wear. Slightly less marks/hairlines, strike may not be full[/TD]
[/TABLE]
http://www.pcgs.com/grades.html