Why did NGC do this?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1878-CC-MO...2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0

Not trashing the company, this just seems weird to me. Or maybe it's fair. What would you grade it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Exactly what did NGC do, that is weird?

 

Well, partly, they graded by the reverse, which isn't the norm for Morgans? Just wondered what others thought.
Should have titled it "Is this a Fair Grade"...can't seem to edit it.

 

Maybe the pertinent question is: "Why did NGC give this coin a straight grade?" The reverse is funky. The wear at the rim is not commensurate with the wear on the eagle and the seller says it appears as if the denticles have been shaved for the silver.

 

They net graded

 

90% of the story of a Morgan is the Obverse.

Of course, I do no have the coin in hand and have not personally seen the coin, but it seems fine to me, from the photos, as an AG3.

The seller's write up is weird, though, I will grant that much...including using a PCGS description, and the looks like VG8 BlahBlah.

 

No telling.

One of the hardest types of coin to grade are those with two widely different sides. This usually occurs with Drape and Seated coinage. This "environmentally challenged" coin shows why coins were originally split graded by the first (INSAB) and second (ANACS) services to add grading opinions for their customers. I should prefer to se a better net grade such as G-6, + the problem for this coin.

 

she's one ugly lady.

 

After clicking the links, the first question in my mind was NOT the grade. It was why is it labeled CC (Carson City) when it has an O (New Orleans) mintmark?

Are my links messed up?

OK. I was looking at the COMP they used for 'grading.'

 

The reverse is AG, hence the grade

 

AG based on the reverse. Not a coin I would buy.

 

Kind of like "EAC grading"...
I always thought ANACS details grades for early coppers were very good.

 

No comment, good luck.

 

Me either, no comment. I just wanted folks to know I'm posting today. Maybe it's time for a quiz.

 

I was under the opinion that using "single grading" gave significantly more weight to the obverse.
Under that policy I would see that coin get at least a G-04.

 

Traditions are not consistent. The old rule of thumb was the grade would not exceed the worst side of the coin. Then they would make allowances for some varieties with known die weakness on one side.

There is honestly no way of knowing anymore. Are deviations from a norm a bad day, a bad grader, a good customer or something else? In the end YOU must determine what YOU will pay and be satisfied.

 

It does though significantly more is probably an overstatement, but again it was net graded for other issues as well

 

Someone may have used it as a pocket piece. That may account for the wear on the reverse being more than on the obverse.

 

You may be right, but can you explain?

 

It's very doubtful thats what it was. Only one side and then the center on the worn side having more detains? Pocket pieces dont really wear from the edges especially not from just one side