1882-S MS66 PL Morgan

Clearly scratches on the slab (not the coin), as they go beyond the coin itself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It is a MS 66 coin, and is definitely proof like. TPG got it right on.

 

Nice coin. I don't think it will have any trouble stickering.

Anyhow, grading is an opinion. Not a science.

 

Doug, I don't see any signs of "wiping". I see two microscopic possible luster breaks (that could just as easily be slightly funny lighting at a single angle). There is no way from those poor images to say that this coin was wiped -- one angle of one image has a slight anomaly that you have circled in red that looks nothing like wiping.

All of the southwest to northeast scuffing on the first 2 images you re-posted above are clearly on the slab. That's what I was saying. The micro-grading of an entire coin based on your circled area is just silly. Without seeing the coin in hand those could just as easily be small die cracks/weakness or struck through a hair -- who knows. Or maybe they are from the shovels used to scoop these up into bags. lmao.

I have no horse in this race, but I find it humorous how nearly every coin posted on these boards you find some silly reason to say that it shouldn't have graded problem free. It's tiresome.

 

Agreed. It is the same ole, same ole--why bother if you know folks disagree with you, Doug? It is the voice of one crying in the wilderness, so to speak.

 

There are bag marks on the cheek.
I don't see it as a -66.
BUT even if it is accepted as a -66 the marks would keep it from being a CAC coin.

 

Coins are funny in that lines you can see at one angle disappear at another angle . Though most of the fine lines to me look like they're on the slab there are the 2 that Doug pointed out that look to be on the coin itself . Since none of us have the coin in hand we can only give opinions on what we see . I'd like to hear what the op says . Are the lines all on the slab or some of them on the coin . I say it's graded in line with how the tpgs grade but won't CAC . Just my opinion .

 

I don't think it's silly at all , we all know Doug grades a coin by ANA Standards , which is how most of us used to grade . Doug is just showing how lenient the tpgs have gotten with their market grading and how most of us blindly follow along , me included . I just wish they would grade a coin the way even PCGS standards state they do . The problem is they don't . 20 years ago this coin wouldn't even push GemUnc .

 

There is no way to make such definitive statements based on those pictures. Simple as that.

Doug said the coin looked wiped. I don't see it. There's a difference between using the "good-ole-days ANA standards" and making comments about a coin being messed with. I simply don't see any signs of wiping -- nor do many, many, many other posters in this thread.

 

I actually disagree with about half of what you post but I have not seen the need to pick at you over it. Why do you do that to others?
I don't agree with Doug all the time but you seem to follow his post and have something insulting to say on a regular basis. Why do you do that? It's getting really old. Don't PM me any longer. Anything I have to say to you will be public.

 

At the risk of sounding like a teachers pet here, I agree with Doug, the marks that he circled are clearly on the coin. I'm not convinced that they are the result of a cleaning and should result in a details grade though. To me the number of bagmarks in the prime focal areas (as shown in the first image that Doug posted) would limit this coin to a 64 if I were buying it raw. It's just hard to judge correctly by images.

One of our favorite dealer/moderator/members the lost duchman shows images of some beautiful coins that walked into his shop that often seem very bagmarked, but when he sends them out, he always seems to get a point or two bump over what I would have thought. I doubt that Matt is bribing the almighty finalizer at NGC, so I just have to assume that his photography technique shows bagmarks as more pronounced than they actually are. Other images by members are nearly spot on to true-vue images. I'm not saying that Matts photography is poor, in fact I wish that all dealers would use this technique so that I would know what I was getting. I am just using this as an example. My photography is in the poor to shabby range.

 

That is fine with me. I was trying to make peace after that debacle over the Trade Dollar, but you don't wish to be peaceful. You're being personal, and I was commenting on grading of coins--a vast difference between the two. That is just peachy-one can't please everybody. I was stating that the coin is definitely a MS 66 and is likely to get a CAC sticker. I was likewise stating that someone was grading it much too severely, and I stand on that point, based on years of Morgan collecting.

ANA standards have not been compromised in grading this coin a gem proof like coin. First of all, the pictures are yellow and grainy--not the best from which to grade. Second of all, it is proof like. A lot of PL coins do have some die polish impacts, which is the reason they're proof like in the first place. Third, while TPGs do get it wrong sometimes, they have a 90%+ accuracy rate, which is way beyond ANY layperson's ability to grade. Market grading is done by average individuals (How many times did owners of raw coins debate "my 1893s is EF, not high VF"). Basically, it falls down to judgement calls, and IMHO, the TPG got it right with this coin, and they generally do get it right.

 

No, Doug is absolutely right. Morgans were shoveled by scoops (much as a grocer's scoop) into mint bags to save time. Some of the "heavier hits" on the uncirculated coins are probably not only from coin-to-coin contact, but coin to shovel apparatus contact. Those really heavy contacts that we see on a Morgan that ruins a good grade, or even renders them upgradeable (for uncirculated coins, that is) are probably from exactly what Doug describes.

 

Doug, I was making a comical reference to one of your posts from probably 3 years ago when you said that a coin's damage was likely from a shovel. Lehigh chimed in at the time, and we had a good laugh. Thus the wink... geeze, lighten up. Curmudgeon much?

 

Our argument, if I recall, was that for a gouge on a coin to be the size of what looked like a staple scratch, the shovel would have had to be ground to a point or sharpened. That didn't seem too likely.

My original statement still stands -- what you circled looks like a small hairline disturbance or break of luster/ bag mark for the coin posted here. It doesn't look anything like a "wiped" coin. Especially considering you can see the full frost/luster on the cheek is intact outside of this very small anomalous area. Coins I have seen that have been "wiped" don't look anything like this. What could a coin possibly be "wiped" with that would manifest as two extremely thin lines and no other issues?

 

I was just going by the top picture that Doug turned upright in post #22 . The lines by the M of unam and the 2 stars underneath . Though after looking again they could be die polish lines . I also should have wrote IMHO , but you should realize that grades given are opinions only .