Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;scottishmoney, post: 2620819, member: 12789&quot;]I liked the 85-O Morgan in &#039;66 and I don&#039;t like most Morgans.&nbsp; That one does have a very strong eye appeal.&nbsp; IMHO Morgans are easier to grade, especially with nice strikes, than many other coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>Where I diverge in opinion are the gold $20s, as Ron Guth notes many of them came in bags back from Europe where they spent decades.&nbsp; PCGS and NGC give a bit on grading because of how they were handled.&nbsp; I disagree with that notion, it is a fact of life with the great majority of those coins from that era that they are going to be baggy and no allowances should be made for bagginess in grading.&nbsp; In essence they are pushing up a grading number based on conditional factors.&nbsp; I myself have looked at thousands of $20 pieces and have seen the full spectrum of grades.&nbsp; I have seen some very nicely preserved pieces and they are quite rare.&nbsp; The vast majority of the $20 coins are going to have handling - and that should be a reality - not an excuse.</p><p><br /></p><p>Oh and pawprints on coins are always a negative for me and there is no flipping way those pawprinted coins should ever get an MS grade.[/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