Guess the Grade - Morgan

Supposedly. That coin has too many hits for an MS-64 IMO. Just look at that obverse scratch at 7-8 o’clock.

Conspiracy theory here, but what if CAC is really tough on “mortal” submissions and lenient on dealer submissions because the majority of the market would report that it is nearly impossible to get a CAC sticker. That would really drive up the demand and notion that only the best coins get the CAC stickers. But the problem with that is that a large part of the market would give up submitting, so it would hurt business in the long run.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A lot more than many, a ton and more than I care to give a number for transactions with them. Their proof photos are generally good, they're good at bringing out colors too on silver dollar sized coins. For whatever reason though overall they choose to emphasize every mark on a coin instead of showing it's real look where you can see the luster as many coins they list have a washed out look. Sometimes I wonder if they're using WW2 air raid spotlights to light the coins they're so overlit.

That of course is great for buyers as it keeps the price down, not so fun if you're the consignor. Barely visible or light marks very often look much more aggressive in their pictures.

Not even close because grade doesn't matter with those colors anyway.

 

Hmmmmm. Who’s opinion is more reliable? Multiple posters (supposedly!) have experience buying coins from GC and comparing the coin in-hand to GC’s photos and PCGS’s TrueViews. All but one have said that the GC photos are closer to the in-hand appearance of the coin. The one diffident opinion has extreme bias towards the accuracy of PCGS’s grades. Hmmmmm.......

 

Ok, so they can just throw any old grade out, that they choose and thats supposed to be ok? I feel like you keep changing your stance here. Also, it shouldnt matter HOW MUCH light you project onto a coin, an overgrade is an overgrade. We could just close our eyes, instead and pretend that there all 70s.
We've seen PCGS mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake presented right here on these forums and all i hear from you is-
Nothing to see here people move along.


(These arent the Droids youre looking for)

 

Do you even understand how pictures impact a coins appearance? Honest question

 

Do you?? Youre trying to reverse the narrative here. Photos can hide marks all day long.
but, THEY DONT ADD MARKS TO THE COIN
Jeez. Youre grasping at straws here. But, youre short of the goal posts unfortunately

 

They can and do exacerbate marks and make frost breaks look like marks which is why I had to ask. From that response though....

 

How many frost breaks were on that fully toned Morgan?

 

Let’s see it in hand like the two expert entities did and I’ll tell you

 

I’ve already shown a comparable on page 2 of this thread. MS 65 CAC Morgan with TruView vs GC image. I held it in hand and the marks from GC’s photos were all there. The same happened with countless other Morgans from GC.

 

Youre telling me, you need to see that coin in hand to believe its not a ms62, ms63 on a good day?? Go back and look at the guesses, noone guessed above 64. Theres a reason for that. Youre on an island here, waaaaaaay out in the boonies. Where weed is legal and the koolaid is spiked.

 

Dont let facts, solid proof, and overwhelming evidence get in the way of this argument

 

Okay, let’s do a side-by-side comparison.



Here is a closeup of the GC image,.



Here is a corresponding closeup of the TV image. I circled everything that appeared to be a significant hit. What I used to decide if the marks were hits was a shadow (dimple below the surface = hit) and a lip of metal (metal movement = hit). All other significant marks in the GC image can beassumed to be frost breaks.



With that said and shown, I will up my grade to MS-64 because it is still too baggy for a 65 IMO. However, I have seen baggier Morgans in MS-65 holders.

 

Should be a 62...63 would reflect the toning for some collectors but that wild toning just gives me a headache.

 

Actually, baseball21 has a point here. If the original photo was the PCGS Truview as opposed to the GC photo, I would bet you that the guesses all would have been much higher. I guessed MS63 with a 1 point bump for color because of the GC photo. Based on the TruView, I would have have graded the coin MS65 with a 1 point bump for color.

Then you add into the equation that PCGS graded it MS65 and it has CAC approval at MS65, then yes, I would absolutely want to see the coin in hand before deciding which photo gives a more accurate representation of the coin's surfaces.

I would lean towards GC photos being more accurate because in my experience, PCGS TruViews are basically like coin porn for the submitter and almost always show the coin in its best possible light. That said, the TruView has me questioning my original grade and seriously considering that this coin is not as grossly overgraded as everyone thought, including myself.

 

I know the guesses would be higher with the TruView photo. The MS 65 CAC that I posted on the prior page was my test case a few months back. I posted the TruView in one thread and the GC photo in another. Most guessed higher on the TruView. I had the coin in hand and it was closer to the GC photo (and in my view overgraded).

This coin looks to be the same case. I’m not saying it’s a 62. To me this one is a 64. The 65+ grade is 1-1.5 points too high. That still makes a big difference. A toner in 65 or 65+ can have a much larger premium than a 64 (I know for quite a few 65 is the minimum grade they want for these types of coins).

 

I have to guess the 2 or 3 individuals that bid this one up to the $3,500+ hammer price were judging the coin more from the TV glamour shots than GC's images.

 

Pretty lady...MS63

 

ddddd, congratulations! You fooled everyone.

 

Exactly this. While it may not look exactly like the TrueView, it's not going to look exactly like the GC either as most people just aren't going to view their coins under that crazy amount of light.

Obviously marks are there but between the luster and the toning I strongly believe they're much more subtle than the GC photos make them look in terms of how much they really jump out