1878-S Morgan Dollar GTG

The cheek is a bit noisy, but tends to be a very baggy date. The coin has atomic luster, and a nice, strong strike, typical of the date. I am in at 65, although it could have gone higher. Very nice coin!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That being the case, I say she rates a '66.

 

They don't traverse the devices, there's the "tell."

Good rate. You're only off by 1.

 

I think we are ready for the reveal. The 1878-S is not like it's later siblings of the '79-S, '80-S, '81-S and '82-S. Those later 4 are often held to a much higher standard. The '78-S is often more baggy and suffers a bit of the ugly duckling syndrome. I've seen a lot of 64's that I would grade a 63, 65's that I would consider just making a 64. But when I saw this '78-S in my LCS's case, it was love at first sight. I thought it deserved the grade it was given. It's a grade that I've wanted to own for a long time, but just hadn't found an example that either I liked or could afford. They often are plagued with ugly toning, planchet flaws or any other myriad of issues that just don't agree with my eye. That's not to say that this one does not have issues, but in my opinion, they are much easier to forgive.

With all that rambling behind us, here's what you guys really care about.

I am always open to your opinions as why you might disagree with the grade. A lot of you typically guess it right on the head with my GTG's, but this one was a little different. A majority guessed lower than the actual grade while just a few got it right. So congratulations to those who guessed MS-66.

Here is a link to my next GTG: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/gtg-2-1879-s-morgan-dollar.398140/

 

What you just said is, they market graded it, they didn't condition grade it. And I can buy that. It's what they say they do. And who knows their market better than them? That's no conditional 66, however. It's the numerical grade that matches the grade at which the coin generally is traded in the marketplace. Another way to put that is, it's bullshit. But then, at least they admit it: https://www.pcgs.com/lingo/m.

 

I agree with you to an extent. Personally I would call it a high end 65. I ended up paying high end 65 money for it, so for me it was a win win. I just wish they would get consistent with their grading. An 1880-S MS-66 should not have to look like a MS-67/67+ from most other years. I get that they "Come nice", but that would only make the population of nice coins grow and prices drop for those years/mm.

A coin should only be graded based on it's traits and not on the traits of it's counterparts.

With that said, in hand, I really like the coin. And in the end, isn't that what really matters? I am very picky about the coins I choose and I would choose to buy this one every time.

 

@jtlee321 I'm perfectly fine with this coin in a 66 holder and I think it is clean enough to deserve the grade. I've mentioned this before and believe quite a few of us do it (whether intentionally or not) and that is add a bit of bias based on the poster. For example, I tend to give the benefit to most nickels posted by Lehigh based on the history of the quality coins he has posted. In a similar manner, I tend to be conservative on some of your coins based on your eye for finding solid and undergraded specimens. Let's see if I over compensate or not on the next installment.

 

They'll ever never do that, because they're not just grading, they're marketing and grading, synthesizing the market with the grade. In market grading, the market is what determines the grade. That 66 on your coin is the market price they think your coin should command should you decide to offer it in today's market. The condition grade always takes a back seat to that market price. That 66 is a market appraisal, it's not a grade. They just trick us into thinking it's a grade. If they were honest, they'd call themselves TPAs, instead of TPGs.