1878 CC GTG

Sorry, double post

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

We call them as we see 'em...........umps are wrong sometimes.

 

I would say neither photo is truly accurate, but the light did something weird to the hairline scratch. It looks like the reflection doubled it. Neither photos show the polish lines that are prevalent from this year either. I don't think I lucked out with the grade, but that's just my opinion. I think it is solid for the grade and very attractive. Hairline scratches can absolutely appear and disappear in the light. I do think 78 CCs get graded the most lenient of the CC coins because they're mostly bagged marked to oblivion.

 

Here's some more photos, the first two taken at the same time with a change in angle.

The last two are the same thing and get closer to what the coin looks like in hand. The second photo you can make out the scratch.

 

IT is NOT solid for the grade if the scratch is there--that is what is considered an obvious distracting mark. This doesn't mean that it is not a pretty coin--it definitely is. However, the 64 grade seems inappropriate to me (as an experienced Morgan collector) if there is a mark of significance in a prominent area--that would normally drop the grade at least one grade. I would stand with 63PL, as that scratch is prominent, in my view. However, it is still a very nice coin. Don't worry about the grade---be concerned that it is a nice PL CC dollar.

 

Lol ok

 

It doesn't look like a 7/8 because there is no 1878CC of that description.

 

I think it is the same coin...see the little "U" turn below the truncation of the neck and face?

 

Well, this is obviously a place where the nature of the photography factors heavily into the grading process. As if that weren't the case for every coin image posted online.

The first two shots of Sean's last set are a perfect illustration of what digital photography can do to a coin. Experienced graders being first exposed to grading from high-res imagery are consistently a couple points low, until they realize the unfair attention it draws to what would be less-significant features in-hand. The first image is digital imagery at its' harshest; the second is likely much closer to what a grader would see in hand.

This coin strikes me as an "average" 64; dunno if it would Bean.

 

It's the same coin, for crying out loud.......

 

From the initial picture, no way that is a 64. From the second picture, yes it is. So, I must conclude that the scratch is noticeable in some angles, meaning that it is definitely there.

 

Um, yes, it's there. It shows in an image. How strong is it if you can't see it at all from some angles?

 

It is in a prominent place.

 

Yes, when you can see it.

 

Give it up. On the first picture it is extremely noticeable. I think lighting more favorable to the coin was used to minimize it in the second picture.

 

I disagree, but we'll let it drop. Ain't worth arguing about.

 

I'm not concerned about the grade; you seem to be very concerned with it. I don't know man. It's a 78 CC; most of them were transported in giant bags with forklifts. Would it be a 64 if it were a 78s? Of course not. Seeing that you are an experienced Morgan collector, I am bemused that you would be so dogmatic with your opinion of this coin's grade. Surface preservation is one of four criteria. You haven't even seen it in person. I don't even know why I'm defending the coin, it's just the way you insist on presenting your opinion as fact. But I feel you may be playing semantics and using the term "distracting marks" as justification for a grade of 63. As far as I'm concerned, every non-modern coin I've ever seen has distracting marks. A hairline scratch is no more distracting to me than a grouping of bag marks or a scuff on the cheek. But there are MS 66 coins with those qualities.

Is it under graded? No. Is it a top tier CAC coin (which I feel basically means under graded)? No. Is it overgraded? No. Is it overgraded compared to common date Morgans? Yes. Have you seen thousands of coins that look better for the grade and personally own only the best coins for their respective grades? Sounds like it.

From the ANA definition for MS-64:

"A coin graded MS-64 has at least average luster and strike for the type. Several small contact marks in groups, as well as one or two moderately heavy marks may be present. One or two small patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scuff marks or defects might be seen within the design or in the field. Overall quality is attractive, with a pleasing eye appeal.

Contact Marks: May have light scattered marks; a few may be in prime focal areas Hairlines: May have a few scattered or a small patch.
Luster: Average.
Eye Appeal: Quite attractive."

 

Huh? I'm wasn't trying to trick you. I was trying to reason with you. You could also say that lighting less favorable to the coin was used to maximize the scratch in the first picture, which is actually what I was trying to do. There is no grand deception, the same coin was in every picture. The scratch exists!

 

You are the one going off. I could care less about the coin. I said it was attractive. I also disagreed with the grade. Why go into a diatribe??? You like it, fantastic. It is a common date cc, not in a GSA holder, that is PL. That is nice-- enjoy it. I believe there are significant distractive marks, beyond the normal Morgan bagginess. So what??? It is your coin, enjoy it. You are the one who posted it for people to respond to it, and myself and a few others thought the coin had enough of a scratch to result in a lower grade, and IMHO, less surface preservation and eye appeal. Don't post a coin here if all you want are accolades. People speak their mind on coins on this forum. You asked-- I, and a few others answered.

 

Come on man, stop being a snob.