Minor problem drops the grade

She’s banged up and looks dipped

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Certainly possible that it had an old dipping. Though, it does have very strong luster in hand.

 

Get new glasses, Doug. You see wear when none exists. I’ve been collecting Morgans long before you even held one. I have zero problems differentiating wear from gratuitous marks, and luster breaks. This coin is NOT AU. You are the coin collector with no coins, and have been pontificating with your undergrading for a decade. You’re consistently 2-3 grades below any other collector, and it is painfully obvious on any GTG, or other grading exercise. Double yawn.

 

To your half-baked philosophy of grading, and coin collecting? Never. You have stature here because you are a moderator. Thus, some people actually accept your misinformation about coins. Take off that hat, and the alleged authority that goes with it, and all we have is a non-collector who is grossly inept his grading skills.

 

In my opinion I believe NGC was generous.

 

I have a new buddy for you....

 

The grade seems right to me, but the pictures are a bit bright. Ignoring the PL part, it seems like a coin of average eye appeal and luster, typical 1896 strike, lots of small contact marks and light scuffs in the prime focal areas, and a few bigger ones. I'm having a hard time figuring out what the fields look like. The reverse looks better than the obverse, but that's usually the case. The PL fields are already accounted for in the PL designation and don't affect the numeric grade further.

 

As they say, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. To my ancient eyes, that coin is a horror.

 

Is this really necessary? Doug made a good point about the Eagles right wing, which appears to be darker and less lustrous as other areas of the coin. He also carefully said “that may well be light wear“. Where’s the misinformation? You specifically asked for “opinions please” and that’s exactly what you got.

 

He and I have disagreed about grading for years. You are one of his buddies. Soooo? The coin is uncirculated.

 

That’s not a reason for attacks. Calm down.

 

Calm? My son and daughter-in-law live in Brooklyn, NY. She is a nurse. My wife had a cardiac procedure recently, in the midst of the pandemic. I don’t know what calm is. Sorry.

 

Sorry to hear about this, but personal attacks on this forum are not going to help anybody. I think this coin shouldn’t grade any higher than MS62 and I am not sure about the PL designation either.

 

Hey, some people don’t get along. It isn’t like I am the only one who battles with him. I don’t mean to be obnoxious, but my nerves are shot enough. I apologize for being difficult.

 

Better pictures of the coin that caused much debate.

 

While blunt and probably rude he did have some valid points. If some new account showed up and was consistently off on their grading often times by several grades people would try and teach them, suggest classes, tell them they need to learn grading etc. When a moderator does it people just accept it. If someone also showed up and said they hadn't been a collector in over a decade people wouldn't take their word as gospel either but if they're a mod then all of a sudden it's always right.

 

Your assumption that people accept Doug’s opinion because he’s a mod is wrong. I appreciate what he says because he proved many times that he knows coins better than most of us. And the point that he’s not actively collecting anymore doesn’t change anything. Do you have a coin collection? ;-)

PS: with the new pictures I’d grade the coin MS63, no PL. prooflike yes, but not PL.

 

Ok, I agree with a lot of what you said. I disagree about the PL designation, respectfully. I think the coin should be 63 PL. These extremely reflective coins are so hard to grade from photographs.