Goldfinger's Shiny Silver Friends

Yeah. Those results look substantially similar to what I posted from NGC. I can't see the filter you applied because it's not encoded in the URL, but when I filtered for auctions since 1/1/2014 and ignoring PL/DMPL, I got a substantially similar set of results. (Ignore the first 2 that are $4700+ since those are actually 1896's -- you have to watch out for things like this on NGC's search for some reason. Also ignore the 4th result because it's a PL.)

Once you throw those out, you see that $900 is pretty reasonable, provided you're looking at a coin that's at least a solid 67, if not 67+, * or CAC. That's all I meant by being in the right ball park.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I didn't mean to sound condescending. If I did, my apologies. When posting on message boards, it's hard to know how much or little information/explanations to provide. Too little and people might jump to conclusions that were never meant, too much and it can sound tutorial.

Anyway, there are a lot of variables, as you know, to juggle when judging the coin. Morgans are large surfaces, so where the imperfections occur is critical. If I'm looking at a 65, I don't want to see anything distracting on the devices. A minor luster break in the fields seems to be the norm, but I want them at a minimum.

This is copied from the ANA site for a 65. Lots of subjective wording if you ask me:
A coin graded MS-65 shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. May have a few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present. One or two small patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scuff marks may be seen on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and eye appeal is very pleasing. If copper, the coin has some attractive luster with original or darkened color, as designated.

Personally, on a 66 or greater Morgan I don't want to see anything on the cheek. Light barely noticeable contact marks are allowed (3-4), but I don't want them on her cheek. Anyway, there's a lot to judge and we all have an eye for what personally appeals to our senses.

 

Not at all JPC, it never came across as that. I appreciate your knowledge and willingness to post. Believe me...keep it coming, I'm learning alot !!

 

JCP, thanks for the grading info...I'm going out now to check out the coin, the photos from my friend are crap.

Better be worth the trip or I'm sending him the bill for the tolls and gas..........

 

Well, that sucked. I got there too late and the store closed.

Anyway, here's the photos of the coin, unfortunately my friend zoomed in and cut off the rating label but he did write down it was an 1879-S MS-67.

You guys think it's better than my MS-66 CAC (see above) ?

I'll get better pics tomorrow, I'm off on Friday's so I'll be in the area anyway. Gonna see the damn thing in person one way or the other.

 

Based on those pics, the obverse of this one looks a bit better than the 66 CAC. The reverse is about the same, IMO.

 

It's scary how if they weren't labeled I would have a hard time differentiating the MS-64, the MS-66, and the MS-67.

 

Does the ANA Book apply these general rules to most of the major U.S. coins, i.e., Saints and Morgans ??? That might really help me alot more rather than applying a general rule to specific coins.

 

Based on the pictures, IMO, this one definitely deserves the 67 grade. If you view the coin before purchase, check out the noon and 6 o'clock position on the reverse. Looks to be something on the surface of the coin, like residue from an improper rinse. IT'S Minor, i'm just curious. It might have very minor surface abrasions on 2 areas of the cheek, but very minor.

I like it.

 

In general yes. What I posted earlier was the "general" description of a 65. For each coin series, there are small differences in the description.

Here they are for the Morgan and Saints:

Morgan:
No trace of wear; nearly as perfect as MS-67 except for a few additional minute bagmarks or surface mars. Has full mint luster but may be unevenly toned. Any unusual striking traits must be described.

Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles:
No trace of wear; nearly as perfect as MS-67 except for some additional small blemishes. Has full mint luster and brilliance. A few minute bag marks and surface abrasions are usually present.

Decide for yourself? Do NGC and PCGS typically follow these for a 65? Are these descriptions so exacting you could even tell?

 

Now, before this turns into another huge grading debate, TPG's vs. ANA, the definitions for 67 are a bit more exacting. It does mention the number and size of the contact marks allowed.

What I find most interesting is this section of the 1st paragraph (after the preface):

7th edition:
"As grading admits of a large amount of personal opinion and differences in interpretation, the information we present should serve as a basic framework. You should gain additional knowledge through the examination of coins certified by commercial grading services, examination of coins offered for sale in the marketplace, study courses such as those presented by the American Numismatic Association, and inquiries to knowledgeable collectors and dealers."

I plan on attending one of the grading courses offered by the ANA. I've heard they are invaluable. I can't attend this year, but plan to attend one next year.

Because contact marks, surface abrasions, et al...are random, personal opinion plays a huge role in the grading process. It's subjectively objective. IMO, it has to be, since no two coins look alike. That comment excludes the proofs and mint set coins being offered directly from the mint these days. In general, I think the mint does an excellent job of providing high quality coins in those sets. There are definitely exceptions as have been posted by members on this site and NGC's message board.

 

Great info, JPC, thanks !

Wonder why both gave info on how to grade an MS-65 and referenced MS-67 instead of MS-66 instead.........

I have trouble telling AU-58's from MS-63's, so for me to say if it's MS-65 or 64 is too much for me at this point.

If I see an MS-65 and 67 side-by-side I am likely going to be able to tell them apart because the 67 has so fewer marks that that is the "tell." But when you have to COUNT or GUESTIMATE lots of bag marks and scratches and wear, then WEIGHING them all is something I find more difficult.

What I really need is a CHECKLIST where I go down the list because sometimes I focus on bag marks and scratches and forget to look for wear on high points...or forget luster...or tiny 'dings' on the edge (though they usually stick out)....reminds me of cleaning my room as a child, I always forgot something and my mother never let me forget !

 

The ANA grading standards book only has 60, 63, 65, 67 & 70 listed for MS. That's why they don't reference 66!

When judging the contact marks, start with the devices, then move to the fields. Also, at first, don't use any magnification. Hold the coin not quite at arms length and notice where your eye travels first. Often it will be to the distracting marks. Then hold the coin down by your abdomen on an angle and rotate it. See what kind of cartwheel luster is left on the coin. IMO, that's your starting point. Only get into the minutia after you have a general sense of the coin.

 

That stuff you referenced is from the 7th Edition of the ANA standards, right ? I think I wish-listed it in Amazon the other day.

 

You are correct. It's a great book to have for sure.

 

My bad (mistake). Since the page didn't have pictures, I skipped over it.

The ANA Grading Standards does have an MS table from 60-70. On the pages with the pictures, they skip the even number grades.

MS 66:
Contact Marks: Several small; a few may be in prime focal areas
Hairlines: None visible without magnification
Luster: Above average, fully original
Eye Appeal: Above Average

 

If something is 'fully original' wouldn't it be by definition be WAY WAY above average ???

Hairlines are smaller than bag marks I take it ? From the die ?

 

When you read your book, you'll see subjective wording in the definitions. If you think about it, it's only natural. They can't be exacting. Which is why we have such heated threads at times. It's one person's opinion vs. another. See the thread about gradeflation, as just one example.

They also talk about how the grading system has evolved and continues to evolve as they get more information. They also mention that grading is an opinion.

 

I'm new here, but yes, even I picked up on that. Good points, JPC.

Yes, for sure.

I think our efforts would be best served if we eliminated counterfeit slabs/coins. MUCH bigger threat than some coins mysteriously being upgraded after resubmissions.

 

Dealer says I can return the coin if not happy, so I am leaning to buying. Most expensive non-gold coin I've ever bought so a bit nervous about the purchase. I guess if I buy it and post here and any of you say I missed something I am covered.

Will report back....