1882S Morgan MS65 CAC-Do you Agree with the Grade?

The 63 was undergraded. The Gold CAC proves it was undergraded, Gold CAC consistently sell for several grade up money. Buying gold CAC for higher grade money has absolutely nothing to do with someone not knowing what they’re doing as you’re trying to make it out to be.

You didn’t prove anything with that example other than you found a significantly undergraded coin with a gold CAC that sold for higher grade money

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is an IMproperly graded 63.

 

No all 63s didn’t look like that.

 

The MS63 example is definitely under-graded at today's standards but I think it was at least a 64 back when it was graded. That is probably an example of a rattler that never saw daylight until just recently. If it had prior to CAC it would have been cracked out for an up-grade.

 

The person who more than anyone knows exactly how a 63 should have been graded at that exact point in time determined this coin was vastly undergraded by putting a gold sticker on it.

 

Hence the sentence he typed directly before the one you quoted.

 

Back up one line Doug - My point was prior to coming back into the market from a long stay in someone's collection.

 

No they didn’t and it doesn’t take long searching for rattlers to see that. You’re trying to use an undergraded coin to show what you want. Some coins were undergraded back then too just as they are today.

 

Maybe back in the days of MS60, 63 and 65 grade scale. (think paramount and Redfield)

 

I do love how people always seem to leave out the fact that only a couple grades were being used back then and ignore that their comparisons aren’t even from the same system

 

I think it's funny that if that 1882-S Rattler in 63 is what a 63 was supposed to look like, then where are all the Gold CAC 1882-S MS-63 rattlers? I've seen many MS-63 1879-S - 1882-S Morgan Rattlers that look no where near like the example you showed. Those were graded properly and the example you showed was graded improperly, hence the Gold CAC.

CAC was not formed until nearly 20 years after that coin was graded. That rattler was graded between 1986 and 1989, CAC was formed in 2007. John Albanese who founded CAC also was a founder of both PCGS and NGC. I'll take his opinion on graded coins every day of the week. I don't buy CAC coins blindly, in fact, I've only bought one or two coins that already had a CAC sticker on them. I buy the coin and not the holder, unless I like the holder AND the coin in it.

The only thing consistent about the TPG's is their inconsistency. Their grading standards ebb and flow between conservative and liberal. Right now, many would argue that they have both shifted towards the conservative side and have tightened up, both on the grading and opinions on toning. In another year or two that will probably swing back the other way. That's how they stay in business. CAC recognizes that and is why they were formed. In the 10 years that CAC has been around, I don't think anyone could argue that their standards have wavered much. Have they made mistakes? Yes, they are not infallible. But you don't hear people saying "Those must have been submitted to CAC back in '09, they would never get a sticker today".

 

Correction, that 1882-S Morgan Gold CAC MS-63 was graded in 1989. I mistook it for a rattler, when in fact it's a Gen. 2.1 missing the outer ring.

 

Edit.

 

I bought two Morgans from Heritage a few months back (79S and 81S). My first purchases from them. I am not in a buying mode just trying to figure out the photo process because I can't tell the luster. Looking forward to seeing your own pics when you get it.

 

I hear daht. Saw a morgan with a CAPONE cut on the cheek. Graded 66÷ the label was worth more then the coin.