1887 NGC MS 64 Morgan

About TPG I read ,(Coin Values) that PCGS was 1st , NGC 2nd , ANACS 3rd in efficiency , meaning the % of times they graded correctly was something like low 90s to mid 80s , in percents , thats a lot of errors . Maybe someone can give the exact numbers . rzage

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

ends theory

Well that kills my roll theory . rzage

 

I agree with the MS64 grade, though the toning isn't particularly attractive to me.

 

True... as with most Morgans, strike weakness shows up in the hair above the ear.

The coin in question has poor detail throughout, not just above the ear - particularly on the obverse. There are many places in the hair and cap / flora with poor detail.

Yes, poor strike can cause a flat eagle's breast. This one is totally without detail, and seems to show no luster.

It is possible this is poor strike coupled with old, worn out dies. After all, this is a very high mintage date - highest in the series up to its time.

I compared this one to an '87 MS65 NGC in my stash upstairs, which is much better struck.

 

I used to pick up coins like that one out of a dealers loose pile of assorted Morgans.

 

I agree!

 

The reason the 1887 is generally considered to be poorly struck is because the dies were used well after they should have been retired. BUT, with a 20 million mintage, from about 55 dies, there are plenty of coins with decent strikes from the first half of each die set run. This crap of making allowances in grading for shoddy workmanship at the mint doesn't pass the smell test, let alone plain logic. It's just another manipulation of the hobby in order to generate more revenue.

 

I looked at lots and lots of 1887 Morgans between MS61 and MS64, all of them had better strike than this example, this one had exceptional weak strike. Fortunately for this date the price difference between AU and MS64 is less than $50.

 

How can you tell the "wear" above the ear is a weak strike as opposed to wear?
also I agree, that toning is UGLY

 

It's guess work, based on a combination of: 1) knowing that the date comes softly struck; 2) not seeing definite signs of accompanying circulation in the fields; 3) giving NGC the strong benefit of the doubt, based upon their expertise AND their having seen/examined the coin in person, as opposed to via an image as we are doing; 4) noting that the softly struck areas in question don't appear to be different in color, as actual wear usually is, and so on.

 

Thank you very much

 

This coin is an interesting example for those who want to learn about grading and especially third party grading companies. Back in the late 80's we were told that third party grading was the panacea for all the grading problems affecting the hobby. The pros were going to sort things out. We were also told that it was supposed to facilitate sight unseen transactions although one of the founders of PCGS AND NGC (John Albanese) is on record as saying that he would never buy coins sight unseen for himself or any of his clients.

The reason grading was the central issue in that endeavor is because, all other things being equal, the price of a given coin was in relation to the grade. By fudging the grade, dealers were able to take advantage of inexperienced buyers in order to generate greater profits.

Now, take a good look at the coin in question and then go to any coin site and compare it to all those other NGC MS64 graded 1887 Morgans. Would anyone pay the same money for this coin as you would most (nearly all) of the others? I think not. So what have we gained here?

The bottom line today is the same as it was as far back as I can remember. Collectors need to educate themselves before spending their money on a hobby that still has many pitfalls. Don't ever take someone elses word as to grade, in fact, I never considered the specific grade of a coin, but rather what I thought the coin was worth compared to the asking price. In the case of the coin in this thread, I would pass in a heartbeat, but if it were to help out a friend who needed cash, I'd go XF bid. If you have to buy coins sight unseen, make sure you can return them if they aren't up to snuff. Unless you are into super rarities, don't ever settle for anything less that what you expect in a coin because there will always be other opportunities and often at a better deal.

 

Not disagreeing with the weak strike theory on the original posted coin, but boy, does this ever best illustrate the tired old saying of buy the coin, not the holder. It may be MS, but it has VF appeal at best.
Guy~

 

I have enormous problems with coins like this because I don't like the toning regardless of the condition.

 

You'd be doing your friend a large disservice. :secret: For as much as you and others might dislike the coin and/or disagree with the assigned grade, there are numerous bidders who would buy it sight-unseen in the $44-$51 range, as opposed to the approximate $15 that the coin would be worth as an XF.

 

None of which seem to be here. I imagine those buyers are typically investor types who wouldn't know an MS from a VF in the first place. Eye appeal is everything in enjoying a grade. It may not play a role in the grade assignment on paper, but it does for a collector proud of his aquisitions.
Guy~

 

I was speaking of dealers, not collectors.

 

The toning and luster might show better at different angle. I've seen the same DMPL Morgan that look very different photos. One showed the coin with questionable mirror, another photo showed a beautiful black and white mirror. it's not easy to photograph a coin, better to see it in person.

 

Ah, my mistake. I wasn't disagreeing with the grade, for the record. I was just saying there are better examples of the same grade for the same money.
Guy~

 

My apologies for not having been clear. I agree that based on the images, there are better examples to be had. But I have seen numerous examples of coins looking very different and much better (or worse) in person than in the images, sometimes shockingly so. Thus, I always advise not to place too much emphasis on images.