1892 CC On The Way To PCGS Grade?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by LostDutchman, Nov 27, 2013.

Page 7 of 7
  1. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    I agree and disagree. At some point, strike quality has to factor into the grade. If you look at the ANA guide for Morgans...even it mentions strike quality at MS65. I think once you get into the high grade MS...strike becomes part of the issue. I remember an excellent post several years back by LeHigh96 discussing this...he posted a very weak struck MS graded Peace Dollar. It was a great post.

    Also, with O mint Morgans you have to be careful. They have gotten a stigma of being poorly struck across the board. However, several years decent strikes were the norm (and several years bad strikes were). I have seen many people marking premium prices on decent struck year coins with decent strikes because of the "strike quality." A premium they didn't deserve.
     
    CamaroDMD, Mar 10, 2014
    #121 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. rlm's cents

    rlm's cents Numismatist

    Here are a couple of PCGS descriptions you might find interesting;
     
    rlm's cents, Mar 10, 2014
    #122 + Quote Reply
  4. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    From what I have seen...these guidelines (at least for Morgans) tend to be date specific. Meaning...a "full strike" on an 1880-S and on an 1892-O is different. At least, based on how have seen them graded.
     
    CamaroDMD, Mar 10, 2014
    #123 + Quote Reply
  5. rlm's cents

    rlm's cents Numismatist

    Yes, they are date specific. Just look at the 1922 Lincoln. They are all horrible strikes, but they go to 65.
     
    rlm's cents, Mar 10, 2014
    #124 + Quote Reply
  6. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    That's an excellent example.
     
    CamaroDMD, Mar 10, 2014
    #125 + Quote Reply
  7. jaceravone

    jaceravone Member

    My 1880CC PCGS MS64
    1880CC - obv.JPG 1880CC - rev.JPG

    My 1893CC PCGS MS64
    1893CC - obv.JPG 1893CC - rev.JPG

    Hmmmmm Makes you wonder????
     
    jaceravone, Mar 10, 2014
    #126 + Quote Reply
    Morgandude11 and medjoy like this.
  8. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    I agree...different dates are graded on different merit. It's not how it should be (IMHO), but it's how it is in today's market.
     
    CamaroDMD, Mar 10, 2014
    #127 + Quote Reply
    Morgandude11 likes this.
  9. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Lehigh96, Mar 11, 2014
    #128 + Quote Reply
    Morgandude11 likes this.
  10. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    I was wondering the same thing. That might have gotten a coin that in reality is a 63 a 1 point bump.
     
    CamaroDMD, Mar 11, 2014
    #129 + Quote Reply
  11. jaceravone

    jaceravone Member

    I like your 93CC better. Much, much cleaner....and better strike. Mine is semi-prooflike, but not enough to get a PL or DMPL.

    This is a one of those coins that is IMO, DMPL, but didn't get it.
    1890CC - obv.JPG 1890CC - rev.JPG
     
    jaceravone, Mar 11, 2014
    #130 + Quote Reply
    Mainebill likes this.
  12. jaceravone

    jaceravone Member

    This brings up another issue that is at the heart of this whole debate. I was just staring at my new 1882CC DMPL PCGS MS64 that I got this weekend. It is kinda banged up. I don't have pics yet to post. But then I look at my regular 1882 CC PCGS MS64. Holy moly, there is no comparison! My 82CC regular is clean as a whistle and my 82CC DMPL is beat to heck.....but it is a DMPL! Should that make a difference!?!?!??! I don't, but PCGS does.
     
    jaceravone, Mar 11, 2014
    #131 + Quote Reply
  13. Ed Sims

    Ed Sims Well-Known Member

    I am aware of that. My point was for those years where the strike quality was inferior a coin with sharp details and a coin that has no details on the eagle's chest grading less than MS-63 strike quality should not be a factor in the grade only adding a slight premium to the price. I do agree that it should be taken into consideration for the upper level grades. My personal opinion is that any O mint dollar with a completely flat eagle chest should NEVER have a grade higher than MS-65 and it would have to be an exceptional coin to even attain MS-65.
     
    Ed Sims, Mar 11, 2014
    #132 + Quote Reply
  14. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    I completely agree.
     
    CamaroDMD, Mar 11, 2014
    #133 + Quote Reply
  15. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    Mainebill, Mar 11, 2014
    #134 + Quote Reply
  16. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    image.jpg image.jpg image.jpg Here's a similar 1884 cc dmpl vs 1891 cc both in ms 64 but in my opinion fairly clean 64 for a cc the 1891 is much baggier especially on the cheek
     
    Mainebill, Mar 11, 2014
    #135 + Quote Reply
  17. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    There's 2 different issues being mentioned in the last several posts, but they are both separate issues that have nothing to do with each other. Now maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like some are attributing them to be the same issue, when they aren't. I'm sure many already know that, but for those that don't and in the interest of clarity, I wanted to point it out.

    1 - Certain date/mint combinations of coins, and that means all coins not just Morgans, are known for pretty much the entire mintage having been weakly struck. Those specific coins are graded based on a different set of standards, a more lenient set of standards, when it comes to quality of strike than other coins of the same series. In other words a coin from the weakly struck date/mint combination, if all other grading criteria are equal, might be graded as MS65, while a coin of the same year but a different mint might be graded MS64. But the quality of strike on the MS64 coin is much better than that on the MS65 coin.

    Now some folks would look at those 2 coins and say how could that possibly be ? The MS64 coin clearly is superior because it has a much better strike, and everything else is equal. So there's no way that coin could be an MS65, it should be an MS63 at best.

    Some folks think it's due to the TPGs that this happens, but it isn't. That policy of grading known weakly struck date/mint combinations more leniently than others of the same series was established long before the TPGs ever came into existence. It was even established long before the ANA published their first set of grading standards in the 1977. And it was agreed that that's how it should be in order to equal things out. It goes clear back to the very roots of grading established in 1915. And if you think about it that's how it should be. The MS65 coin is graded as an MS65 because for the given date/mint combination, the quality of strike that it has is that of an MS65. In other words it's a bit better than most other coins from that same date/mint combination. The fact that it's not as good as other date/mint combinations from the same series has nothing to do with it.

    2 - Special treatment. The TPGs have taken it upon themselves to grade coins of a given scarcity more leniently than they would grade coins of the same series that are not as scarce. They also grade coins with well known pedigrees (coins from notable collections) more leniently than they do other coins from the same series but without the pedigree. And they grade coins of higher value more leniently than other coins from the same series. But scarcity, pedigrees, and value are not and never have been grading criteria. But yet the TPGs treat them as if they are.

    What Joe mentioned, a beat up coin getting the DMPL designation while a cleaner, non DMPL coin of the same date/mint got the same grade as the DMPL coin is a good example of this. The DMPL coin was graded more leniently purely because it is a DMPL - more scarce, and more valuable than the other coin of the same date/mint.
     
    GDJMSP, Mar 11, 2014
    #136 + Quote Reply
  18. LostDutchman

    LostDutchman Under Staffed & Overly Motivated Supporter

    Welcome to Market Grading 101.
     
    LostDutchman, Mar 11, 2014
    #137 + Quote Reply
    Morgandude11 likes this.
  19. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    This is mine, and it is graded at MS 63. (in hand it is a pretty, toned coin, but the reverse is quite baggy. I'd have gone lower as in 61 or 62):

    93cc rev.jpg 93cc.jpg
     
    Morgandude11, Mar 11, 2014
    #138 + Quote Reply
  20. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening



    Really now, Doug. Take the criticism like a man, and walk away from the fray. This is an absurd defense of something that is obvious, and empirical. You grade way below the TPGs and anybody else, and just accept it as the truth. Don't get defensive, and go through elaborate means to justify that which is obvious--you grade too harshly. End of story, If everybody else grades with a scale similar to the TPGs,and you don't there must be an issue, and it isn't with the TPGs, even though they do occasionally blow it a few times.
     
    Morgandude11, Mar 11, 2014
    #139 + Quote Reply
Page 7 of 7
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page