GTG with a twist - Morgan edition

I'll let this go for a bit longer.

There might actually be multiple twists!

I'll add some hints (are they hints or distractions ):

~I don't fully agree with any of the three grades (at least not when comparing the coins to each other).
~One coin is graded the same or lower than the others
~If I was a market grader, I would grade all three differently than what they actually graded

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

63 because it’s a mostly white coin
64 * because of the rev toning
64 no star because the toning towards the rim appears to be terminal

I like coin #3 best and can’t wait to see which one the graders liked most...


PS:
@Kasia good eye, obv #2 and rev #3 would make a hell of a coin!

 

Time for the reveal:

1. 67
2. 65 Star
3. 67

 

I would have never guessed that any had a chance at a 67.
The in hand luster and appeal must be nice.
That is a pretty big toning bump for #2.

 

Back to my thoughts:

~I don't fully agree with any of the three grades (at least not when comparing the coins to each other).
--> I think #1 and #3 are nowhere near two points better than #2

~If I was a market grader, I would grade all three differently than what they actually graded
-->One would think the market graders would bump up the toned example....

 

In my opinion, the two 67s don't deserve it. To me all three coins were close (I'd give them all something in the 65-66 range).
Unless the standard for 67 has shifted?

I disagree that #2 had a toning bump. Looking at many 63s and 64s, it is much cleaner and has strong luster. I've owned and looked through a bunch of Morgans over the past few years and even in 65, the cheek and fields are almost always worse than with this coin.

So the other part of the twist is that #2 was cracked and sent in again. It was part of my recent submission with the Franklin and Eagle (other threads). Based on what I'm seeing lately (including color bumps), I thought #2 should upgrade. I was thinking it was closer to a modern day 66 (technical 65 and a 1 point color bump). It came back with the same 65 grade.

I learned that if I'm going to complain about grading, then I shouldn't be able to benefit from the spoils.

 

I agree that the coins were graded generously. #1 looks high 64 to me, with a shot at 65. The fields by the face are noisy, IMHO. The other two are straight on 65s to me. Oh well, you benefitted from grading—win some /lose some. I agree with the toned one as the nicest of the lot.

 

Just to clarify:
-Neither of the 67s are my coins
-The 65 is my coin

-I can say that the main examples where I’ve benefited from grading were when a few of my modern world coins received 70s (as the 69/70 line is also one that can be hard to guess) and some received 69s but were still top pops (those were better dates where a 69 still mattered)

 

Oh, ok. Well, the two 67s, especially given the large number of great examples of those two dates are way over graded—they are 65s at best. Totally insane market grading. Your coin has beautiful toning. I think the technical grade is appropriate. What it deserves is a star for eye appeal, as it has beautiful toning, and it got the star. Could it be a 65+* or 66*? Yes, definitely, as a bump for color.

 

Agree that the two grades 67s are over graded, given the dates. I see them at the high side of 65s at best. The toning on the reverse of your 65* is beautiful. IMO the only thing holding the coin back from a higher grade is that the obverse has a bit much facial and neck chatter... at least from the photo. It may look much better in hand.

 

There are some small hits but nothing too severe. I’ve seen quite a few 65s lately where it looks like the coin lost a knife fight. Some of those are making it difficult to buy what I think are fairly graded coins.

 

That 1881s bright, white 67 has terrible looking fields on the obverse. The NGC grader had to be drunk on that one. I originally said 64, as most TPGs are usually brutal on ‘81s. I can definitely see a 65 on that, and the other coin, but 67??? No frigging way. It really stretches credibility beyond comprehension, especially given all the beautiful specimens of those dates.

 

This is far more a technical 67, than either of the two posted. Not my coin, but if those are 67s, this is a 68 or 69 DMPL. Just saying.

 

Take a look at this one. It’s the cleanest Morgan I’ve ever owned and it graded 66:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BwnzWe-FvM7/?igshid=1i2ziuak3fa9o

 

You've GOT to be kidding me?!?! There is no way those coins deserve that grade.
I was just starting to get a good feeling towards tpg. Congrats to the owner

 

I knew the grades I posted would be conservative but......

 

And my friend an I just let alot of Morgans go for so little. And almost all of them looked better than those did. I mean the marks on her face, in the fields. Hell it looked like one had a big runny burger coming out of her nose, that I would have been embarrassed to show, and another looked like someone tried to slit her throat. And the were 67s??? Go figure

 

Yea yea I know. It says "Burger", when I meant booger. Lmao So I was really hunger and my spell checker rides a short bus! HAha
Later,,,,,, Foo

 

hmm

 

No way would I call any of the 3 a 67. I’d have guessed 65 across the board. Maybe a color bump on the second. I could almost see the last coin as 65+ or a low end 66. But I wouldn’t touch them for 67 money