The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 26

Let's go back to something more people are familiar with.

How good is CoinTalk compared to the TPGs? Let's find out! Over the next several months, I'll be posting a continuous stream of Guess the Grade threads. I will be using photos from the Heritage auction archives (please do not cheat!).

All you have to do is guess the grade! I will be attaching a poll to each thread. Please select the grade that you think best represents the coin (to avoid bias, please select your grade before viewing the rest of the thread).

Also please post your opinions about the coin, and it would be most educational if you could explain why you chose the grade you did.

Around Christmas, I will tally up the results and see how we did. This thread is an offshoot of a recent thread where I compared CT grading to the TPG, seen here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/how-good-is-cointalk-at-grading.343417/

We're going to cover a wide range of material, and some of it may be out of your wheelhouse. However, if you are a confident grader, you should be able to accurately grade almost any coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I said 64, we have some noticeable cheek abrasions and a bit of funny business on the left obverse field. However, this could warrant a 65 as well.

 

I chose MS64. Some bag marks on the reverse (eagle), and obverse (neck). Although it could have been MS63, the good overall luster might have brought it to a 64. There are some scratches as well, but I will assume those are on the holder.

 

65, barely.

 

IMO it's a -65.
I believe the marks are bag marks, not handling marks.
And I consider them within the current definition of MS-65.

 

Don't forget to vote in the poll. You have to vote for your guess to count!

 

I think this is a very nice 64 deserving of a + but I cannot get to 65 because of the dull luster.

 

65. Luster, strike, eye-appeal are all very good. The fields are quite clean for a 78-CC. There are no heavy marks, and those on the cheek are not distracting. A 64 will have one disappointing hit or scuff on the face, and this doesn't. The reverse is very clean.

 

64- the die cracks on obverse (6 & 7 o'clock) and reverse (11,12:30, 1:00, 5:30, 6:30) keep it from getting a '65 but it might get a leg up because of the CC.

 

Bag marks exempt a coin from a deserving grade. I grade this as a MS65 due to the lower neck marks, and the hit on the O on one. Nice coin over-all.

 

Without the reed marks below the eye a 66 all day long. I went with 66 anyways because the reverse is so nice!

 

Went with 66 even though I thought the die cracks should have held it back, seeing how it is really not got a lot of marks compared to many I've seen in a 65 holder. So I think PCGS rewarded the fairly clean fields and luster and bumped it to a 66.

 

I went with 65.

 

I think we have an MS65 here.

 

65

 

Asking what I'd grade it or what I think PCGS already has graded it? If the former honestly I'd go with 64.

 

I think the coin is a 65. But I think it was graded a 66 because it appears to have wonderful eye appeal and is a CC Morgan.

 

My grade is 65. I have seen worse in 66 holders, so I will guess it graded 66

 

65. I'd call it a 66 for luster, strike, cc, minimal bag marks...except the hits on the lower neck look pretty bad and distracting to my eye...but I am not a Morgan guy.