Is this a market acceptable scratch or something else?

What do you all think?
Is it a scratch or something else?
Should the coin have straight graded?

In the end, the bidders either didn’t notice or didn’t seem to mind as the coin sold for $1,114.88.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not in my book, but ...

 

Nice catch. IMO No!

 

Meow would think a scratch like that would make the coin ungradable, like a details coin. Meow feels it should be a much lower grade than ms64 with that big scratch.
It does have a nice obverse tone to it at least.

 

IMO, the scratch is not severe enough to warrant a details grade.

 

I agree with it getting a straight grade. The scratch is in a good place that somewhat hides it. If it were across the face, I could see it getting a details grade.
Pretty coin but I would call it a 63.

 

For me personally, it’s a Details grade. I would be too bothered by it.

 

That is a bit more than a scratch. It is gouged deeply enough to part her hair quite noticeably. Now I am one of those odd men out. I don't judge my coins based on what a TPG tells me. I like the Morgan..... But I don't like her $1100.00 worth.

 

Based on the pic, that bothers me. I think it's a slap in the face of other MS-64's. It's too deep & I think it's too prominent.

 

Amen!

 

Honestly, my eyes are drawn to the white spots more than the scratch.

 

I swear, it's one of those "once you see it, you can't unsee it"

 

Exactly. I’d grade her either MS 61 star or MS details. Likely the latter.

 

Agree with the details assessment. Albeit is a great coin. And I disagree with the leniency grading by the TPGs. The fault or excellence of a coin is there or it isn't.

But I do also understand how the overall condition of both sides upholds each other, and this reverse really supports a higher grade. I have a tendency to grade more strictly, but this is MS62 star, imho.

I personally do not gravitate to affection for toning, unless it is natural-looking. Rainbow toning on Morgans or Peace ( or any coin, for that matter) just makes me suspicious...Spark

 

Do you think the grade should have been lower?

I could (begrudgingly) allow for a straight grade but the other hits/marks should already have it in the 63-64 range max.

Or do you think it was netted down to a 62 and then bumped back up to a 64 for the color?

 

I think from a holistic view of this coin, the assigned grade is correct. The scratch is right on the edge of severity that would cause a details grade but because of the toning, it isn’t very distracting.

Did PCGS go through the thought process of net grading it for the scratch and then bumping it back up for the exceptional eye appeal generated by the color? I really doubt it. I think they decided the scratch was acceptable and that the overall appearance of the coin was that of an MS64 coin.

To me, it doesn’t matter, the value of this coin is solely dependent upon the color. I don’t know the spread in value between MS62-MS64, but they are all lower than $100 and the market values this coin over $1K.

Imagine if this coin was blast white, the only thing you would see is that scratch. Monster toning often trivializes surface flaws, both by hiding them and by distracting the viewer with incredible overall eye appeal. This coin reminds me of the $100K+ 1958-D Franklin Half Dollar that had several surface flaws but was given a top pop grade because of the overall eye appeal.

In the end, it is up to each of us to decide what standards we apply to our grading of coins. Many people in this thread are very strict with regards to scratches and would consider this coin a problem coin. Others feel the coin should have been net graded and been assigned a lower grade. And people like me agree with the assigned grade on a holistic level by weighting overall appearance more than the strict interpretation of the surfaces. So who is right? IMO, we are all
right, and that demonstrates the inherent subjectivity of coin grading.

 

I don't like that scratch, we've had members post coins that show very minor scratches, dings, etc that got details.

 

I also think that the color determines the value, but don’t you think that in most cases the market would have placed different values on it as a 62 vs a 64? I don’t think the coin would have approached the same $1k price if it was in a 62 holder. Similarly if it was in a 65 holder, I believe the price realized would have been even higher.

While the price guide spread on 62 vs 63/64 vs 65 is fairly small, the toning spread can be quite large for those three grade groups. I could see an untoned example going for 35-55-105 as a 62/64/65 while toned this same coin could be 350/$1k/$2k. So the grade can be very important and bumping for color can cause a significant swing above what is typically seen with untoned examples.

 

I agree that the base grade can and does influence the overall price as many toned coin collectors use a price guide multiplier in their valuations. Additionally, many collectors have standards below which they won’t buy. Some collectors require a gem grade, some won’t go below MS64. As the grade decreases, the buyer pool shrinks which also leads to lower prices. That is why I don’t think this coin should have been net graded to MS62. Typically when I see an MS62 toner, it almost always has subpar luster in combination with surface issues. This coin presents as an MS64 with a borderline surface flaw that doesn’t really detract from the overall appearance, IMO.