INS Thought we could discuss this one.

I am hoping to bring a friend of mine into this conversation @Insider
Oh. yeah If you want to Guess the Grade.
Please have at it.
I think I gave the best interpretations of the coin, in the photos.
The carbon spots are distracting
What are your thoughts on the grading?


Two photos of this one, maybe a third.


Give me all your thoughts.
I am happy with my buy, love the slab.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks Paddy, @Paddy54

 

absolutely fantastic.. PL DMPL from the pics and Im think 65 maybe 66

 

You always hear about the S strikes of that vintage (and a year on either side) being so plentiful in gem grades, with amazing reflective fields. So you'd think being plentiful perhaps they wouldn't bring premiums..

But they do. And in my view they're worth it. That one is very appealing. And I don't see carbon spots! I see vintage toning thank you very much.

 

P.S. Mmm cameo.

 

MS62PL

 

63

 

This is one difficult coin to image...basically you're photographing a mirror...any light just bounces back...
Hammered 80 S that could be used as a signal mirror its so bright......and the devices so frosty they look as if pulled from a deep freezer.
One should never pass a chance to look over one of these older generation slabs they produce a lot of varieties that at the time of being slabed were not looked at. Case in point this 1880/79 most would of passed not seeing a mid grade at least. This xf 40 top 100 vams definitely worth the look.

Like the Global slab I purchased at the Baltimore show....1891 cc spitting eagle top 100 vams.

 

From that company? 65 PL

From PCGS? 63 not PL

 

I like the coin. From what I know about DMPL they are incredibly hard to photograph well since the reflection magnifies any defect. I would be around 64 DMPL personally, but this from an idiot ancient collector who hasn't bought a Morgan in 25 years.

 

I'm between 63 and 64 due to this lighting and shading. It's getting the reflection, luster and color across, but to the detriment of obscuring the condition. I'm seeing cartwheel luster, as opposed to a mirrored finish, meaning, well, we know what that means, this is no PL. If I had to pick, 63. These were exceptional dies, that's why.

 

Despite some field chatter and the small spots, I believe the clean cheek and overall look places this one at a 65.

The holder is cool too. They might have called it a 65PL

 

Grading standards were much different back then. I'm going to guess it is in a MS-65 PL holder.

 

Being in the grading game back in the 80's.
What kind of company were they?
And how did their grades compare to the other TPG's?

 

Thank you, The spots are very minor but they are there.
The one on the neck below the jawline, it could be a bit of terminal toning but I don't think so.

 

There are quite a few of these 80'S Morgans that were graded PL that are borderline PL and some that just don't make the standards anymore.

This was a very hard coin to photo, I still don't think I have presented it as best that I can.
I may try a couple more and cover part of the slab. It is causing a bunch of refraction back into the lens.

 

If anyone else wants to guess the grade, I will post the reveal later today.
@Tamaracian @jtlee321 @CircCam

 

@Morgandude11 @Dave Waterstraat

 

I am gonna say solid 64, just a hair short of 65. Really lustrous coin, and great reflectivity, even from fairly dark photos. Not quite PL— it might well be 64+, as it has luster a blazing. The bagmarks in the lefthand obverse fields cost it a 65, by a hair.

 

I think INS may have had it at MS65PL. It is a very nice looking example and a great piece of numismatic history in that photo cert.