GTG: 1884-CC GSA Morgan Dollar

I'm not suggesting you take scratch x to the cheek! The area above the obverse has a bunch of fine scratches on the case. I use it all the time on my cases and it makes them look almost brand new. It really makes them pop. Remember, I guessed it was a 65, no criticism of the coin here, just a friendly suggestion to increase its marketability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very nice. I would have probably said 65 based on the updated images.

 

Gem used to mean a super impressive coin with few older coins reaching that status . Today with market grading they give coins that would of been a 63-64 a 65 . Also being a CC mint mark also means a slight bump in grade . Though as long as the tpgs remain consistent , which they mostly are , it doesn't really matter if you're buying the coin in hand as long as you pay what it's worth .

 

.

Don't think so... We can find mistakes (63 in your opinion in a 65 the professional opinion of 2-3 graders slab) but that is not the norm.

 

I'm talking of the way coins were supposed to be graded some 40 to 50 years ago . So my thoughts still seem valid IMHO .

 

My guess before I saw the grade was MS64, with great luster.

 

I would have said 64 based on the first set of images.

 

To provide a counterpoint, look at all the coins in Redfield hoard holders. Most of the 65 coins in those holders end up grading 63-64 at NGC. Fifty years ago there weren't as many ranges of mint state grades. Now there are 20? from 60-70.

 

I think that some may be forgetting that there is a sub range within the MS 65 grade. There are coins just right for the grade, and they will be pretty clean, with very minimal bag marks. There are coins low in grade, that will display many more contact marks, and perhaps, a bit less luster. Then, there are the ones that are high in grade; coins that did not get sent for a CAC, and ones that escaped the plus designation, but are still much cleaner than an average coin. I feel the reason so many people said 64 on this coin pictured is that it looks low to minimally average in grade for a 65. There are more than the normal amounts of disrupted surfaces that one would expect for a solid 65. That is where I feel this coin lies--a technical 65, according to a reliable TPG, but minimally so--not at the high end of what one would expect for that grade. Also, remember that CC dollars do get a psychological and probably real bump in grading, as they are perceived as more rare (which they actually are not, as so many survived in the GSA horde). So, accept that a lot of coins that one would not normally associate with the grade of 65 are 1882-1884CC Morgans, and don't be surprised if you see a coin that looks like a clear 64 with 65 grading on it--that is reality.

 

@jtlee321 nice coin! I agree with your statement that high quality digital imaging can magnify and create problems that don't exist. I have some Peace Dollars that look high-grade in hand, but when I posted high resolution photos of them, tons of scratches came to light.

 

I won't argue that the grade may be justifiable, I just think if I would buy a MS65 sight unseen I would really be thinking/ (hoping?) a Morgan with fewer contact marks then this would show up. JMHO. Still a nice coin, I don't mean to down it.

 

60-70 is 11 steps. It used to be there were 3: MS60, MS63, and MS65.

 

I think the 20 steps includes the + grades: 60, 60+, 61, 61+, etc.

 

That would be 21 unless there is a 70+ in which case it would be 22.

 

Well, if that's the case, don't forget the * grades, which gives 11 basic grades, 10 more + grades, 10 * grades, and 10 more +* grades, for a total of 41 (unless 70*, 70+, and 70+* are possibilities, then there are 44).

 

All we have to do is come up with as many divisions as coins, and everyone will have Pop 1's. Of course, that means price differences between grade would be picoCents, but that's probably possible if you do the transaction electronically.

 

There's a guy on Ebay asking $3850 for an 1885 CC AU58 because pop 1.

 

ROFL.

 

What does that stand for?

 

Rolling On the Floor Laughing