1899 Morgan Undergraded?

I would have bet this one would have came back higher than MS 62. What do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

When did you send it in? Or when was it sent in?

I think this rumor about PCGS tightening their standards is really true.

 

I do agree, very sharp devises and fields are cleaner than a 62 entails.

 

Just got it back yesterday...

 

This is not a series I'm familiar with. However, it does look like a 63 to me. The roughness of the cheek I feel would prevent 64.

 

The Morgan cheek is a grade sensitive area. If I enlarge the pics there are lot of contact marks there. Not sure how it would look in hand, I could probably agree with a bit higher grade.

 

I think it's graded right, many bag marks and scratches on obverse!

 

Oh I love these exercises trying to improve grading skills after one of the Mods said he could grade in 5 seconds and be consistent... so I was wrong on this one after reading above...……. I gave it a 64......it took me 12 minutes to come up with this..thinking contact marks are lighter and less concentrated in one place..appeal is sharp and eye candy for sure.. Blind note: I didn't enlarge photo... longshot probably another mistake..

 

I would have expected a little bit higher grade, based on what I'm seeing in the pictures. But, there are a lot of marks on the cheek, and that will really hurt the grade.

 

Too bad, however, the dings over the obverse and reverse are numerous, thus I can see PCGS grading it the way they did. It is a sharp Morgan with the toning.

 

62 is definitely too low. 60, 61 and 62 are usually pretty ugly coins and this one is not. I grade high 63, just missing 64.

 

62 looks fair ...lots of tiny abrasions on obv high points.

 

I think it's good as is. There's a lot of activity on the obverse, & on the reverse 3 things jump out: (1) what is that in the field under the arrowheads?, (2) what is that activity between "_ D O" & the denticles?, (3) what is that activity above "..God we.."? (Btw, it does not appear to me to be a VAM.)

Throw in the toning (read: "discoloration" ) & I think you have a good solid 62. (You see now, how subjective grading can be? )

 

How many respondents went to the PCGS grading site and looked over the MS-62 to 64 pictures and made a comparison to this 1899 coin? I enlarged these 1899 photos in a new tab by right clicking on the photos? Then I compared the PCGS MS-62, 1884-CC photos with the enlarged 1899 photos. Very similar including the environmental issue dark spots. Now for the PCGS MS-63, 1884-O comparison. No environmental issue and sort of less marks. I look forward to 1/2 grades so maybe the 1899 is really an MS-62 1/2? Your 1899 has better EYE APPEL than the PCGS-62 comparison coin.

 

I'm a little surprised at the 62 grade. Yes, there are plenty of abrasions on Ms. Liberty's cheek, but from the picture, not terrible. The coins looks like it still has luster. I would have thought 63.

I had a similar experience with a 1902 S. The devices were cleaner than your coin and there was still nice luster on the coin. Came back as a 62 as well.

 

63 in my opinion.

 

I'll say it's an attractive MS62. At MS63 it would be average at best but then we're only talking about an FMV difference of about $25.

 

Either the graders saw minimal wear (look at Liberty’s ear and the eagle’s breast) or they didn’t like the surfaces (obv looks a bit odd...). I still see a solid 63, but they likely downgraded it for mentioned reasons. It’s certainly not about the marks, as the fields are pretty clean, even too clean for a low MS grade. Yes there are numerous hits in Liberty’s face, but nothing too bad.

 

64. Nice coin

 

I think 62 or 63 is fair.