Grade on this 1880-S doesn't match

That's one of the worst looking undamaged Morgans I've ever seen. Get your money back!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Return the coin. False identification. ADD the name of the seller to your "never again" list and send it to CT for all of us to take note of.
Semper Fi
"Live each day as if it were your last - you might be right!"

 

junk to me not worth only for silver looks like its been beat to death. I am not a collector to show off what I have but nothing that looks like this would be in my collection the grading system has gotten way over board I don't use it just my own I do understand profit with higher grades but most are not collectable try selling it yourself bet the market would not offer much

 

In re to the red text - A collector should rely on his own eyes and opinion of what he is seeing, and nothing else. There's really not much else to say in that regard. It's the same old adage - "Buy the coin, not the slab/hype/sales pitch"

Yes, ANA standards are ANA standards, but there are 2 problems (probably more can be argued) with that in regards to this situation -

1. The seller host strictly forbids using number grades to assess the condition of a coin that is not slabbed by one of the 4 major TPG's, therefore any number grade or hinting at a number grade should (and IMO must) be ignored on a raw coin
2. Grading is based on the 'opinion of the grader', so it can be argued (and from what I understand has been in court), that the seller (aka grader) who in his OPINION feels the coin warrants the grade he/she assigned to it. You don't have to agree with it, and we know there are good, bad, and horrible 'expert graders' in this world of numismatics.

In regards to the images being juiced, absolutely they were. Now the question is, and would need to be proved, is whether the seller intentionally juiced them in an attempt to deceive, or is he possibly just a poor photographer? Maybe on his/her screen it doesn't look juiced. In his/her opinion, those photos could be a valid representation of the coin.

Now, do I believe that? NO! But the point is there are tons of tremendously bad photos of coins on the internet (have you seen the stuff half the members here post?), and a buyer of coins has to be able to read the photo of the coin he is potentially going to drop some coin on (pun intended) to prevent situations like this and protect himself.

The buyer here is fortunate that the seller offers free returns with no question, and that he doesn't have to go through the INAD process (although the Bay does make it fairly simple). The buyer got the exact coin in the listing.

***I AM IN NO WAY SUPPORTING OR DEFENDING THE SELLER IN THIS INSTANCE, BUT TRYING TO GET THE OP AND OTHER'S TO SEE THAT BUYER'S MUST PRACTICE DUE DILIGENCE IN THIS HOBBY***

 

And I am not really disagreeing sir. Just stating that "Gem" is not puffery, since it has a define definition in the ANA standards. "Puffery" is making up nonsense superlatives. A sales person can say all kinds of things, but it is illegal to say its "one owner" when the title will prove 4 people have owned it. That has a distinct legal definition, so he cannot lie about something like that.

The coin pictured would have 100 out of 100 coin experts testify it is not a Gem BU. Now, maybe 3 would agree its BU for some reason, so the seller could call it "spectacular BU", "gorgeous BU", of whatever, but "Gem" is a legal grade, and he crosses every line stating that.

That is all I was pointing out. not many newer collectors are aware "choice" and "gem" are defined by the ANA as a grade.

 

^ Agreed!

 

The seller offers your option to return it. Just return it, and you might not want to purchase raw Morgan's in the future.

 

1880-S is a pretty common coin that is readily available at slabbed grades up to 66.

 

After thinking on it, there is probably not a partial refund that the seller could offer me that I'd be happy with (as the coin just has too much mess going on in the fields to be one that I want in my collection). So, I am going to return it.

But, what on earth does that have to do with not buying raw coins in the future? If a coin is photographed (or photoshopped) deceptively, that says nothing about my ability to judge the coin once I have it in hand. If you're saying "some unslabbed coins look much worse in hand", that's certainly true, but it doesn't dissuade me from continuing to use my eyes and try to cherrypick good prices from the huge array of unslabbed coins. And the vast majority of coins are photographed accurately (or in such a way that the grade may be understated).

 

Then go for it.

 

AU-50 sharpness, cleaned and messed with, net Vf-35 to XF-40