1892 CC On The Way To PCGS Grade?

Yes, I read that too, but his answer was as I posted.

And, BTW, the coin I posted that he said "That mark is nowhere near as bad." Its mark is 50% longer than on the coin Matt posted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's fine...I'm not going to defend Doug, he can do that for himself. My only point was, I at least partly agree with him in this case.

 

I called it a 64, but had I looked at my other CC Morgans with similar hits, I may have called it a 63. I believe that single hit on the jaw took it down one grade, but honestly I would not be surprised if resubmitted if I would come back a 64.

It is hard for those of you who don't collect Morgans to fully understand the grading process that goes into these coins. Grading is not the same for all coins, as it is not the same for all coins within a particular series. If you don't believe what I just said then don't even bother collecting half and large cents and don't follow EAC. I was at a coin show this weekend and had some interesting conversations about this very topic with many dealer friends.

I want to give you an example but without actual examples in your hand it may be hard to understand. Next time you are out at a show go out and find a Morgan 1879S SAF. They are all freaking gorgeous. The next one is always better than the next. But then look at the grades. The ones with barely a nick on them will grade 63-64. You start thinking to yourself, "what the heck will it take for a 65"??? Then you see a 65 and you kinda understand, then you see a 66 and you are blown away and so on. This year, from this mint had incredible strikes. Very strong with a lot of PL surfaces. Deep, rich cameos. The TPGs tend to be very hard on coins from 1879S SAF because of the above factors.....plus many were very well preserved.

But when you get to the 92CC and 93CC coins, well those are different stories. Although each coin was traditionally known for their overall weak strikes, a clean coin still possessed attractive luster. But then why do we see these unattractive MS63-64 coins when compared to the 79S PAF in the same grade?

Weren't both coins stored the same way....in bags located in government vaults? This is where the bulk of these coins were pulled from. With all things the same, the later CC coins were pretty banged up. But TPGs realize this and grade according. Its like that grading curve that we got in school. If the highest grade on the test was an 80, that represented 100 and everyone's grades got shifted up to reflect the curve. So someone who got a 50 on their test could very well come away with a 70 and pass. This is kinda a stretch, but you get the point. This is the same thing that goes on with the CC coins.

There is grade adjustment for each particular series of coins and grade adjustment within each date of coin. A 1879S PAF MS64 is not going to look like a 1892CC MS64 plain and simple. So either you subscribe to that or you don't. If you don't subscribe to that theory and collect coins for what YOU think a 64 should look like well then I would say that not only would you have one heck of a clean collection but you would come out on the winning end on some very tough coins.

It used to be that dealers would sell a coin for what it was graded, MS64=MS64 price. But now I am finding that dealers are upgrade graded coins!!!! They basically are becoming their own CAC sticker. A MS64 coin now may equal a MS64+ or MS65 price because it has a better strike, clean fields, etc, etc than the typical coin graded MS64 for that series. I got into a discussion with a dealer this weekend who had all DMPL coins in his case that were graded by PCGS and NGC.....but the thing was neither PCGS and NGC graded them as such. He did!!!! and he was commanding strong prices for them. I tried explaining to him that just because a coin had a strong cameo appearance, that is not what designates a PL or DMPL designation. That is only one part of the equation. The fields also have to be highly reflective to get that designation....and his weren't. But he thought I was wrong so I moved on. Anyway...I digress.

 

I think you are 100% correct. I collect Morgan's and I see the same thing...you basically have to accept this, or you will be miserable. I personally don't like it, but it's the truth and it's not going to change. So, I accepted it long ago and am perfectly happy with my Morgans.

 

Jaceravone, agree with much of your post. It seems the Morgan CC is more leniently graded than other mintmarks in the series.

What do you mean by PAF or SAF? I tried to figure out the acronym, but could not.

 

PAF = Parallel Arrow Feather aka Reverse of 78
SAF = Slanted Arrow Feather aka Reverse of 79

Two different VAMs, but equally important to collect for a complete Morgan collection IMO.

The 79S PAF (reverse of 78) are more weakly struck and not as nice as their fraternal twin SAF.

 

Excellent analysis, and very thorough discussion about the treatment of certain CC dollars. As a longtime Morgan collector, I agree completely. People who call Morgans "details" coins due to the hits on them just don't know the series well enough, or the storage issues. The "knock on the cheek" is so true--I've seen gorgeous coins dropped a full grade for one very prominent bag mark. Great write-up!!!!

 

Another wonderful thing about this series too is that there are many examples to choose from. If that big hit bothers you...as it bothers me, a different BU example is not hard to find.

I agree that certain CC dollars do get "special" treatment at times when it comes to grading. But, on the other hand there are many Morgan dates (1880-S and 1881-S come to mind) that have the opposite problem, the TPGs are especially harsh on grading them.

 

Exactly---to get a MS 65 on the 80s and 81s, the coin better be perfect.

 

That's true.

 

The flip side of this is on any good date CC--my 1885CC, which is one of the most underrated dates in the series is a 64, and it is a very baggy, albeit lustrous coin. It would probably have been a 61 or 62 in any common date Morgan.

 

Uh oh, we are getting serious now, Doug has resorted to breaking down posts into sections. I will not follow suit but I will answer your questions and address your points.

It doesn't bother me that you vehemently disagree with TPG grading standards, not a bit. What bothers me is when you present your grading method as CORRECT and the TPG method as INCORRECT. Here is what surprises me. You relish the fact that your grading methods are much different than those used by the TPGs, yet when I paint it in a negative light by saying you are part of the "lunatic fringe" you seem to have a problem with it. I though you would wear it as a badge of honor. But make no mistake, you are part of the "lunatic fringe" with respect to grading. And the only reason you are able to take such a conservative stance on grading is because you don't collect coins. Those of us who are not on the sidelines don't have the choice of simply dismissing TPG grades, even if we disagree with them as much as you do.

I have told you this many times over the years but you just never listen to my constructive criticism. As a moderator, you bear a higher responsibility for both the content and tone of your posts than a regular member of the forum. You routinely post information that is not consistent with what is accepted by the numismatic community. When challenged on any point by me or any other member, you respond with condescension and insolence that is purposefully designed to diminish the credibility of the member who is challenging you. In doing so, you cause those in a position to challenge you (experienced members), to become frustrated and feel unwelcome on the forum, thereby incentivizing them to leave permanently. If you don't see the frustration of the members of this forum then you are either blind or you just don't care. Either way, it is a problem, and it is hurting the overall health of the forum.

Now back to the topic at hand. So your original opinion was that the coin would Genuine grade for damage and then you backed off a little by saying it was a coin flip. That still means that you think PCGS is as likely to bag the coin as they are to grade it. But when I asked Matt, he said that this coin would have 0% chance of ending up in a Genuine holder. Now Doug, you can say whatever you want about me, but Matt Dinger is a professional numismatist/coin dealer who submits coins to both NGC and PCGS on a regular basis. This is his business. Coin dealers don't make money by being wrong about problem coins. Your opinion that PCGS will bag this coin 50% of the time is an inherent condemnation of his grading skills. But my guess is that it doesn't bother him at all because he probably has the same view of your grading methods that I do. And while we are on that subject. If we assume that the gouge appears more severe than it really is in the photo, and that you had think it would grade, what numerical grade did you think it would get?

 

I think you just spent so much time trying to prove me wrong that you actually supported my point. How many times did you state that I was wrong in that post?

 

Not going to argue or discuss with you or Doug about grading(sometimes I think you are correct and sometimes I think Doug is correct - but just my opinion). My question or comment is totally different on this topic, but centers around this quote. In the quote is that what a lot of collectors accuse CAC of being(or even the eagle eye sticker)? A grader for the grader since TPG's don't get it correct - part of the fringe as you say. I really like how a few seem to foam at the mouth when you say the CAC word. Now don't get me wrong it is not what I think - I know CAC is trying to identify the "A" list coins. Then again I don't always agree with the TPG's or CAC - and I am not saying they are wrong, just I don't agree with the TPG or CAC sticker.

 

It is one thing to disagree with a TPG grade. I have done it many times and any collector worth his salt has disagreed with the TPGs many times. But to consistently grade 2+ points lower than the TPGs is lunacy. Adding a CAC component to this discussion might actually melt the forum software.

 

I agree that tpgs grade cc Morgan's especially key date Morgan's more leiniently then more common dates why I said it to be a 61-62 I personally would call it a 61 and I'm lacking a 92-cc in my collection but the mark would have made me pass on this one as Tom b says its a but coin

 

There is a good chance that it could be. I personally have a problem with this...I wish all coins in the series were graded along the same scale. So what if far fewer high grade 1892-O Morgans exist than 1880-S due to strike quality. But, that's not how it's done.

 

The Rules

2 – Personal attacks are not permitted. All Coin Talk members, young, old and in between, will treat all other members with respect and be civil at all times. You are expected to act as responsible individuals, there will be no name calling or flame wars.

So it is okay for staff members to behave like this out in the open forum? I know people will disagree on grading and the grading services I myself don't always agree with them. but I didn't expect to see such a dissertation like what has just been posted between two staff members.

From what I have seen in the 40+ years I have been a coin collector is that there has been a shift away from the Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards to a market standard which I feel is destroying any confidence in any of the grading services and CAC. It is I believe it is driven for very a obvious reason, money. ALL coins of a particular series SHOULD be graded using the same standard and the only exception would be for any year/mint that has proven to be known for exceptionally weak strikes. In those cases only the lack of detail fresh out of the coining press must be taken into consideration.

The New Orleans Mint Morgan dollars are known for lack of detail on the eagle's chest for many years so if one has a chest with exceptional detail and has the same technical grade of one that does not otherwise I can see a premium for that but the grade should not be higher for the better struck coin solely for that reason.

My two cents worth and if you don't agree with my opinion that is your right just don't bash me for having my opinion.

 

First, I am not a staff member of Cointalk. Second, I don't believe that either Doug or myself made any personal attacks towards each other. I simply told Doug how some perceive his posting style and he told me I was wrong (several times). While I might not like the content of some of his posts or his blunt posting style, he is an outstanding forum moderator. He knows exactly when someone crosses the line, and exactly how to handle it when they do.