ANOTHER overgraded PCGS Morgan

I chose not to participate since everyone else already said what I thought.

I opened this thread expecting another GC vs TrueView debate, and I was ready to defend the TPG in that regard, but I was surprised to see that this coin actually was overgraded by pretty much all standards set by the current market.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I usually don't hear people complaining about PCGS over grading coins? It's usually vice versa? Interesting.. I'd have to see it in hand to make a final judgement. I'd say 66* by the pics?

 

You must be new here.

 

Nope.

 

It was a joke, meaning I see rampant criticism of both TPGs on this forum.

 

That I think its dumb just guessing from pictures like Messy mentioned. It's actually kind of funny that you keep tagging me in these to be honest. There's over 2 million graded Morgans by PCGS alone, you would have to post 20k coins just to get to 1 percent of their population and have to post really 200k coins before you got to a meaningful percentage.

66 with a grade color bump most likely.

 

I know it was. No problem.

 

For the record, one coin a pattern does not make. I’ve found PCGS to be quite consistent with Morgans.

Which is worth more: the coin, or the holder? You can ask that question for most certified US coins and get the same answer.

 

I'd grade it $200-$225. That would be my valuation of it. Even if we ignore technical grading, that would put it closer to MS66 pricing. In addition to being overgraded, this thread shows why I hate market grading.

 

That coin could use a dip.

 

Rein it in, it just needs a downgrade, not a bath.

 

In my experience, both TPGs market grade rainbow toned Morgan Dollars by giving the numerical grade a color bump for exceptional eye appeal. I don't have any problem with that at all.

This particular coin seems to be graded specifically to drive a higher price that would normally be paid as a toning premium. As I said in my initial post, it is extremely rare to have the numerical grade drive the price of a Morgan with this level of toning. I'm rather hoping that it is just an overgrading error, or the luster is much better than the photos are showing, because I certainly don't want this to become standard practice.

 

I guess you and I would strongly disagree on that idea sir that TPG should give a grade bump for toned coins. A grade should be a grade, and appearance can be priced according to what is in style at the moment. Believe it or not, toned coins did not always have a premium for the most part. What happens to "pretty" coins graded MS66 when the toning fad fades? Now you have a 65 or 64 the TPG intentionally put into a 66 holder to account for a "toning premium" market "adjustment".

A TPG, to have any value at all, should properly vet out fakes and grade according to provable metrics, not what is currently popular amongst some collectors. Do nice pure white coins get a grade bump, because THEY were what most collectors desired not that long ago.

 

I like to hear you grovel and make excuses.
Plus, i play this fun little game where i try to predict what you are going to say.

 

The grade bump is a market grading principle based on the fact that eye appeal is part of the grade. An MS65 coin with attractive rainbow toning is better than an MS65 coin without it, because the rainbow toned coin has superior eye appeal. What you are hoping/waiting for is that eye appeal will someday become undesirable. In my experience, many things change in numismatics. The one thing that has never changed is that eye appeal always brings strong prices.

You are correct, rainbow toned coins didn't always generate huge premiums. The primary reason for this was that very few collectors knew about them. The general consensus in the coin world was that collectors wanted coins that looked like they were freshly minted (untoned). And dealers were very happy to dip any toned coin they found to increase the marketability of those coins. Occasionally, dealers would save the better toned coins for special customers who desired them and break them out upon request, but they would not have them in their display cases.

Then two things happened. Digital photography and the internet brought rainbow toned coins to the masses. You call toning premiums a "fad" as if they are beanie babies. This so called "fad" has been going strong for over 2 decades now. In order for it to end, you are going to need to find a way to disinvent digital photography, the internet, and people's natural inclination to like "pretty" things.

Good luck with that!

 

I don't make any excuses, just state facts which ago against the agenda of some of you. Enjoy it while you can I will be ignoring the trolling tags soon. I've made it very clear for a LONG time how dumb I think GTG threads are and how silly it is to think you can definitively grade from a picture better than they can in hands. Very few times is that actually true the rest is just an opinion. GTG and threads like these are at best for entertainment

 

GTG threads would be a valuable tool if they weren't exclusively used to illuminate some form of market grading by the TPGs. If people starting mixing in straight forward guess the grades on untoned mint state 20th century coinage, I think they would be more valuable and a good way for the novices graders to learn about grading.

Personally, I would like to see more GTG threads where the coins are raw, and the person asking you to guess is the submitter. Those are fun.

 

If you call facts believing everything that PCGS does then you sir are being truthful.
With the views given you are saying that this coin with chatter all over her cheek and eye, even the loss of luster on the high points of her hair, And more so the heavy contact marks in the field in front of her face should be considered a 67? These coins weren't even hardly considered 65's in the past. 64 contact marks with extraordinary luster. I'll tell you what give it a plus.
Please tell us how you think this even qualifies as a 66 let alone a 67.

But you really don't have to answer me because I must be a troll if I disagree with the mighty PCGS.

 

This attitude which makes it impossible to have a real discussion is what puts a lot of posts into troll territory. You do this constantly. We get it you have an agenda against PCGS.

Loss of luster, where would that be from that extremely lit picture showing a coin that actually has blazing luster. If you think that coin is struggling for luster you just proved my point from everything I said above

 

The apparent blazing luster plus the eye appeal can possibly put this coin in the 66 category for me. But a coin so baggy should never be considered a 67. Even though MS67 isn't a rare (hard to find) grade for this date, you still have to reserve it for the relatively small group that is set apart from the rest. IMO MS66 is attainable for this coin, but it's a low end 66 at best.