1880 Morgan $1-GTG

Looks 53?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I bought an 91-CC Morgan in one of those holders at some podunk Missouri auction. I couldn't find any info on it so I ended up cracking to be 100 on its authenticity. I feel dumb for just now realizing it's attached to the International Numismatic Grading Service.

 

So what was the grade ? On the 91 cc in this holder.

 

I see significant areas where the luster was completely worn away. The amount of detail lost is consistent with that level of luster. I stand by my assessment

 

As I stand by mine with coin in hand!

 

No assigned grade, just like your gold piece. There was another slabbed 91-CC there but it was harshly cleaned, so apparently GCSI wasn't too partial on what went in their holders. Also, that cleaned CC went for much more than the decent XF I bought.

 

The gold slab was purchased on a whim...I wanted the slab as well the tie into the the ship wreak. Thanks for your speedy reply

 

Another reason I purchased this slab was the disclaimer on its reverse side. Read it...pretty much covers any liabilities.

 

@Paddy54 the sequence of these grading companies is not something I've done any research on... Yet...

I do have a hypothesis however...

/1/ hypothesis1 the two compartment photoslab was designed by PhotoCertified (PCI) to work around Alan Hagar's three-compartment photoslab patent. I have not yet found the patent application nor an issued patent (applications are harder to find because you don't have the chain of links in actual patents that have completed the examination process)(it's also true that lots of people put patent pending and then never follow all the way through)

/2/ when Hallmark went bust PCI bought their intellectual property for the small slab. This is widely reported as fact.

/3/ hypothesis2 one or more of the other users of the two compartment photoslab (Global, INS, et Al) bought the intellectual property that PCI was no longer using. Even without a patent, the molds for the shells, the die for cutting labels and the sealing tooling would all have had value. Whoever bought it then either shared the wealth, licensed it or maybe passed it on to successors.

Looking into this is on my list of someday projects.

 

Thanks for your reply Burton
I was thinking that this slab was an early one, as yes has pat spend, but the number of the slab on the reverse, a rather large number at that, their disclaimer on the reverse.I have other INGC slabs none look like this one.

 

Quick rip through my bucket of two compartment photoslabs...

INGS 1644219, 2345923, 4308210 (Gold International on front, REGISTERED with cert# inside reverse), 7623621 - the three are black front, cert# on front too). Text says copyright 1987.

Global - very late (March of dimes 75th - mint cancelled) so this is only a couple years old. Also 2001 ASE and Sacagewea. 2014 Sac. Waffle ccncelled 50SQ.

One label Coin vault Inc with a sticker "packaged exclusively for silver dollars of New York" copyright 1987

INS copyright 1992 and another copyright 1997

SO - if I were guessing...

INGS bought the IP from PCI in 1987.
Probably did some contract slabbing for others.

INS owned it in the 90s

And Global 2000 to date


(What are you doing up at o dark and scary?)

 

Getting ready to leave for work....I'm up early every day.

 

Owner’s bias is a very real thing.

This issue was very well struck. The fact that there are no breast feathers on the eagle means there is significant wear, and this would show up as heavily broken luster in the fields. I am 100% sure you are misinterpreting the dullness of the fields as “toned over luster.”

 

Owner bias....which end of your digestive system are you speaking from?
First of all its a 35 dollar coin purchased for two reasons 1 because I collect the slabs, and 2 as a learning tool. There are a couple hundred silver dollars in my collection why would I be bias about an Au slider coin.
You really need to step off.....and I've seen other members here in post... advise you the same.....

 

Sorry, calling this a 58/62 is just wrong. If you are not able to see that, then that’s not my problem.

It’s pretty obvious: