Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;jaceravone, post: 1881662, member: 9474&quot;]I called it a 64, but had I looked at my other CC Morgans with similar hits, I may have called it a 63.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>It is hard for those of you who don&#039;t collect Morgans to fully understand the grading process that goes into these coins.&nbsp; Grading is not the same for all coins, as it is not the same for all coins within a particular series.&nbsp; If you don&#039;t believe what I just said then don&#039;t even bother collecting half and large cents and don&#039;t follow EAC.&nbsp; I was at a coin show this weekend and had some interesting conversations about this very topic with many dealer friends. </p><p><br /></p><p>I want to give you an example but without actual examples in your hand it may be hard to understand.&nbsp; Next time you are out at a show go out and find a Morgan 1879S SAF.&nbsp; They are all freaking gorgeous.&nbsp; The next one is always better than the next.&nbsp; But then look at the grades.&nbsp; The ones with barely a nick on them will grade 63-64.&nbsp; You start thinking to yourself, &quot;what the heck will it take for a 65&quot;??? Then you see a 65 and you kinda understand, then you see a 66 and you are blown away and so on.&nbsp; This year, from this mint had incredible strikes.&nbsp; Very strong with a lot of PL surfaces.&nbsp; Deep, rich cameos.&nbsp; The TPGs tend to be very hard on coins from 1879S SAF because of the above factors.....plus many were very well preserved.</p><p><br /></p><p>But when you get to the 92CC and 93CC coins, well those are different stories.&nbsp; Although each coin was traditionally known for their overall weak strikes, a clean coin still possessed attractive luster.&nbsp; But then why do we see these unattractive MS63-64 coins when compared to the 79S PAF in the same grade?</p><p><br /></p><p>Weren&#039;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.&nbsp; But TPGs realize this and grade according.&nbsp; Its like that grading curve that we got in school.&nbsp; If the highest grade on the test was an 80, that represented 100 and everyone&#039;s grades got shifted up to reflect the curve.&nbsp; So someone who got a 50 on their test could very well come away with a 70 and pass.&nbsp; This is kinda a stretch, but you get the point.&nbsp; This is the same thing that goes on with the CC coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is grade adjustment for each particular series of coins and grade adjustment within each date of coin.&nbsp; A 1879S PAF MS64 is not going to look like a 1892CC MS64 plain and simple.&nbsp; So either you subscribe to that or you don&#039;t.&nbsp; If you don&#039;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.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>It used to be that dealers would sell a coin for what it was graded, MS64=MS64 price.&nbsp; But now I am finding that dealers are upgrade graded coins!!!!&nbsp; They basically are becoming their own CAC sticker.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; He did!!!! and he was commanding strong prices for them.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That is only one part of the equation. The fields also have to be highly reflective to get that designation....and his weren&#039;t.&nbsp; But he thought I was wrong so I moved on.&nbsp; Anyway...I digress.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in