Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Morgandude11, post: 8192732, member: 37839"]Ok, won’t prolong this one.  I agree with [USER=111228]@COOPER12[/USER], that the pictures do not flatter the coin at all.  Once again, I believe that it is a strange combination of poor die state, and great luster, and is an extremely bright coin.  Are the surfaces marred enough by bagmarks to bring the grade down to sub gem level?  In my view, no.  Is it a high level gem?  Probably not, as the die deterioration did leave artifacts on the coin.   My view is that it is still an attractive coin, and here is how NGC called it.  Albanese agrees, apparently: [ATTACH=full]1434708[/ATTACH] Do I think it is a high level 66?  No. To me, it is more like an upper level 65, or 65+.  It does look better than the pictures reflect.  As I said in my article I wrote last year, counting the bagmarks is not a productive way to grade Morgans. Would I pay 66 money for this coin?  No, I didn’t.  For high 64 to low 65 money, it was well-priced. It was a bargain for me at high 3 figures, as opposed to being a $2,000 coin.  A dealer was liquidating inventory, so it went out the door at way under retail for a 66–as I said low level 65 prices.  I, personally, would have graded it at 65+.[/QUOTE]