Why no 65 grade?

Why did this not grade 65?. Latest addition to the family.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice coin.....aside from 65 being Gem Quality and 64 NOT being that, it's really a 1 grade difference.

You should have done a "GTG" with this and seen what everybody thinks it should be.

In fact, do that now quickly and most people here won't have seen it.

 

MD, I'd re-do this thread....do a "GTG" Thread and post pics without the grades and PL designation. Might get better responses and feedback on the actual grade.

 

Maybe PCGS didn't like those "smudges" and the black spot on the obverse in the prime focal area or the rim ding above "OF" on the reverse. ~ Chris

 

No rim ding. No smudges—reflections, and fingerprints on slab.. One tiny spot

 

Too late.

 

I didn't think so, either, but then again, I don't work for PCGS. ~ Chris

 

This would have been a great GTC.

 

This is a tough one. I would theorize that for the obverse, there may be enough marks on the cheek (between the ear and the chin), marks below the neck line, as well as marks below the corner of the eye, to warrant the 64. For both the observe and reverse, I see numerous, small nicks in the fields.

Maybe a technical 64, but a strong candidate for a year/mm that sees some weakly struck specimens.

 

There are some scuffs on the cheek but its hard to tell how bad they are in the photo. 1902-O Morgan's are known for having a very wide range of strike quality (from poor to very well struck) and this is definitely on the full side of the spectrum. Not unheard of for this date, but not super rare either...so I don't think a full strike bumps the grade for this date.

I suspect the scuffing on the cheek is the reason it didn't get a 65. I wonder how they actually look in hand because in the photos this coin looks very clean.

 

Bust it out and put into your own holder with the grade you think.

 

Remarkably clean for a 64, but that black spot is plunging me into an existential crisis.

You photos certainly do a good job of showing the reflective surfaces--at least they got PL right.

Any chance you could take a head-on photo of the obverse so we can get a better look at that cheek?

 

I’ll answer your question this way: Who knows? Maybe the coin came up tails instead of heads. Though I’m being facetious, sometimes that explains it as well as anything.

You have a nice coin there!

 

Cheek Marks

 

Nah, it has frizzle right across from her face. I forget what the technical name is for frizzle but it's there, and that black spot definitely ruins it for me! The reverse looks primo, the obverse, not so much.

 

It looks cleaner in hand. The carbon spot is really extremely tiny—picture exaggerates it, and makes it look like a humongous zit, which it isn’t. I own less clean PL Morgans that are 65s, so I was definitely curious about this one. I see the “frizzle” on the cheek, so to speak, but once again, not dramatic, and no big hits or bag marks that one usually sees on plenty of 65 Morgans. I was going to do a GTG, but had posted it already. My guess is that it is slightly under graded, as I have seen comparable PL coins get the 1 grade bump, or a 64+. Really kind of surprised it didn’t go that way, but the coin looks nice in hand.

 

To me, the original pic is just a tad blurry. Is that 2 hits right on her jawline and one just below her eye? Maybe a tiny one on her forehead. It’s a beautiful coin regardless.

 

What's up with the cheek? Appears to be significant abrasion, If it is the holder, re-shoot the pic. from a slight angle.
Many MS-64 through MS-66 sold through Heritage w/abrasions to face and wear to breast feathers on reverse.

 

Here ya go:

 

Morgandude sounds like a pro. But it is amazing what the slightest change in light will do in these “quickpics”. Here is mine 04 O (which I like the grade) with just the smallest of tweaks to camera position.