Is this 1902 Morgan undergraded?

This listing popped up in my saved searches. It looks better than a 64 to my eye, but maybe I’m missing something. What say you?

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/253491557159

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I cant see much on my phone with those photos. It looks like the luster might not be there, but thats just a guess. Buy it and find out

 

I agree.

 

Is that a fingerprint right on Liberty's cheek!!!???

 

That’s what I was wondering too. Sort of looks like it.

 

Looks about right to me.

 

With the lack of luster, I see 64 as just about right. I am a luster fanatic. I'll accept more marks before I'll take reduced luster.

 

I see it sold for $220, which I think is too much premium for this coin. It may be a 64, but I don't like the uneven toning around the devices (I'm not a toning fan anyway) & and it's just not..........

 

It's too bad the pictures of the coin in the holder are blurry. I agree with the luster not being strong enough for a 65. I think it's graded properly.

 

Well, I disagree. Looks like a 65 to me.

 

Ah, the eternal optimist.

 

Agree with CBD, too clean for a 64 even without any semblance of luster left. A coin shouldn’t be downgraded because it was produced in the later stage of the dies, a grade should be based on the state of preservation of how it was produced. I don’t see this one as an overdipped coin, that would be a different story.

 

But don't you feel luster is an element of the grade? I owned a very clean 1891-CC graded MS62. When I bought it, I was hoping there was more luster on the coin than in the image. That wasn't the case. Still a great looking coin, but without the luster, I felt the grade was accurate.

 

I just ran across this 1884-O, graded MS65. Now, perhaps it’s a difference in lighting between the TrueView images, but I’m trying to figure out how it got this grade. The 1902 looks far cleaner, but this one appears to have more luster. Whatcha think?

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/222884592617

 

Well yes and no. An overdipped coin will lose its luster and really shouldn’t receive a straight grade IMHO, but a late state of a die will also lose its luster, but that the way it left the mint. Now I’d agree that 65 should be the cap for a coin that lacks luster, but to undergrade a coin based on luster seems like a misrepresentation of the state of preservation.

 

I get what your saying when it comes to die condition translating to surface luster, but I think even for a 64, the luster must be there, even if the lack of luster is due to a late die state. Just my opinion.

Dipped coins are a different discussion. Especially overdipped, dead luster ones.

 

That is an MS64 hiding in MS65 plastic.

 

I'm not sure I follow you. Coin was graded MS64.

 

But why must luster be there? I ask this as a philosophic question of grading practices. MS-60 requires luster by EAC standards, but should this really be the case? My grading standards are somewhere in between; I judge a coin for purchase based on its state of preservation. To me it’s pretty simple, but it also goes against current standards. My feeling is that a coin should be graded on how it left the dies and the care that was taken to preserve its natural state.

 

The other coin IkeSkyWalker posted just now. It was a 1884-O graded MS65.