Grading Tutorial on Morgans

Yup, I have, and always will.

It's pretty simple Travis, and it is Travis isn't it ? As I mentioned above there are certain coins, and only certain coins where this happens. In a nutshell, the entire mintage of the '80-S, '81-S, and '82-S (in a general sense, not every single solitary one of them, but just about) came out in a far higher quality than any other date/mint combination of Morgan ever did. This is what makes them different, special even. (And before someone ask, the same thing is not true of the '78 and '79-S Morgans, or later dates. The '79s are close, but they aint quite there.)

Think about what I said there - the entire mintage of those coins stand head and shoulders above all other Morgans !

Now this is not to say that there are not other individual Morgan dollars that are just spectacular. There absolutely are ! When you're talking about individual examples there are many Morgans of other date/mint combinations that are just fabulous coins. But what there is not, is another date/mint combination where the entire mintage is anywhere near, I mean not even in the same country let alone ballpark, as nice as what those coins are.

Do you understand what I mean now ? About those specific coins ?

Now, regarding key dates, by your own words you agree with me that key dates should not be afforded looser grading standards, just because they are key dates -

I would disagree with one of you criteria - hyperluster. Quality of luster is one of the primary, if not THE primary grading criteria. So any coin exhibiting the highest quality of luster, assuming all other grading criteria are excellent as well, must be afforded a higher grade than its brethren that do not have an equal quality of luster.

But to bump a grade just because a coin is scarce or even rare, or because it is attractively toned, or because it is notably expensive, when all of the other grading criteria call for a lower grade - well that's just plain wrong.

Ya see, being a key date does not make the coin special when it comes to how it was made. As a general rule there is no key date in any denomination where the entire mintage is known for being exceptional, far nicer than any other date/mint combination of its type. Coins are only key dates because there were: few of them made, few of them still exist, or are exceptionally popular (the 1909-S VDB for example). That coin exists in large numbers, is readily available (you can buy 10 of them in any grade you want on any given day, if you have the money), but yet it is considered a key date purely because of its popularity.

That's the difference between key dates, attractively toned coins, and coins like the early S mint Morgans. All, (again in a general sense) of the early S mint Morgans are spectacular coins. They are all well struck, even exceptionally so. They have exceptional luster, and they all have exceptional eye appeal. But not all of any of the key dates are spectacular coins, they come in all variations just like almost all other coins. Some will be weakly struck some well struck, some with poor luster some with good luster, some with good eye appeal some with bad eye appeal.

Now when it comes to the other grading criteria such as contact marks, hairlines, scratches and such - well those are all things that happen to coin post strike. And they apply equally to all coins across the board. But what I was talking about is when the coins were made, not post strike.

Make sense now ?

And I'll agree, this is something that not everybody gets, not everybody understands. But hopefully, when it is explained like I have above, or tried to, you should.

 

You are not wrong. And this too is a valid practice. It, (these principles) and the same thing I am trying to explain, go back as far grading itself goes back. And when I say back I'm not talking about when the TPGs came into existence, I'm talking about the very foundations of coin grading itself. Accountability must be given, be taken, when the entire mintage of any given coin is exceptional, in either direction.

This is how it has always been and how it should always be. The very definition of standards is that things remain the same, static and unchanging. Once standards are formed and established, it is their unchangeability that makes them standards.

 

Rim dings, rim dents, rim bruises - and no they are the same things, they are all different.

And if you think about it for a minute you should be able ot figure what they are and why they are different.

Oh, and then there's the issues of the difference between a business strike rim and a Proof rim - but that has nothing to do with grading.

 

We're not talking about value here, we're talking about grade. Lemme see if I can explain it a different way. Say you were trying to grade cars, would grade an ordinary Chevy or Ford the same way you'd grade a Ferrari ? Of course not. But the Chevy or Ford may justly be be graded and 65 and the Ferrari a 65 as well. But yet the differences between them would be astronomical. When you look at the two it would be like comparing a work of art to a mud fence.

Well, that's what we got with the early S mint Morgans - they're a Ferrari. And the flip side of that would be comparing some of O mint Morgans (not all of them mind you, but some) to the rest of the Morgans. Some of those O mint coins are graded more leniently than others because their entire mintage was a piece of crap, even when compared to an average Morgan.

edit - What I'm trying to get across is that you have to know the nuances of the coins when grading them. There are few exceptions, but only a few.

As a general rule - yes. But there are always 3-4 little, I hate to use the tabs but I don't know what else to call them, that hold the coin in place.