Some MONSTERS Morgans in for grading! GTG

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by BigTee44, Sep 16, 2019.

  1. BigTee44

    BigTee44 Well-Known Member

    Some monsters just went out to NGC for grading for a customer.

    My guesses-
    1881-CC MS63 or cleaned- Old Dip that is borderline. I've seen worse in a graded slab.
    1885-CC MS63+ reverse is PL, obverse is Semi PL, so we might see a star
    1893-CC AU55, chance at PL
    1893-S XF45/AU50. Really hoping for the 50 for my customer!

    Lets hear your opinions

    IMG_3244.JPG IMG_3246.JPG IMG_3231.JPG IMG_3235.JPG IMG_3242.JPG IMG_3243.JPG IMG_3238.JPG IMG_3240.JPG
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

    AU 55 maybe Detals
  4. cpm9ball

    cpm9ball CANNOT RE-MEMBER

    '81-CC.....MS Details - Cleaned
    '93-CC.....AU Details - Damaged
    '93-S...…..Returned - No Grade

    I'm unsure about the authenticity of the '93-S.

    furham likes this.
  5. longshot

    longshot Enthusiast Supporter

    63, nice
    AU details
    Maybe 45+, looks like it may be messed with.
  6. BigTee44

    BigTee44 Well-Known Member

    just edited these pictures of some more of the Morgans that went in for grading.

    IMG_3247.JPG IMG_3249.JPG IMG_3250.JPG IMG_3251.JPG IMG_3252.JPG IMG_3255.JPG IMG_3256.JPG IMG_3257.JPG IMG_3258.JPG IMG_3259.JPG
  7. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes? Supporter

    1881-CC MS63, definitely cleaned but probably market acceptable
    1885-CC MS61, that obverse is WAY too beat up for a 63.
    1893-CC AU53, PL really doesn't mean much on circulated coins, and that rim damage is going to hurt the grade (if it grades)
    1893-S XF45 or lower, this should not be a 50. Too much wear, not enough luster, and again, all that rim disturbance is going to hurt the grade. Maybe not enough for a details slab, but it will hurt.
  8. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes? Supporter

    Also, you really need to re-evaluate your use of the term "monster," because not a single one of these is even close to a monster.

    They might be different than you might normally handle, but "monster" means a really high grade, special, unique coin, often with distinctive toning. These are not that.
    LuxUnit and ldhair like this.
  9. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    I think he meant "big coins." As in big value. The 93-S certainly qualifies IMO.
  10. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes? Supporter

    "big value" (compared to what you may normally handle) *DOES NOT* mean "monster". I understand the excitement of handling big value coins. But when you say "monster" I expect my socks to be blown off... rather than a bunch of AU or UNC details/problems coins which are kinda valuable but really aren't worth screaming about.
  11. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    Monster toning has an accepted specific meaning. But where is the numismatic authoritative definition of "monster coin?" I've never seen it.
  12. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes? Supporter

    I'm sure there isn't a definitive explanation of "monster coin."

    But, in common parlance, I'm also sure that a borderline details semi-damaged maybe EF/AU example of a coin with many, many examples in superlative grades higher would never even be considered by the vast majority of collectors as a "monster" coin. Nothing in this thread even approaches monster status. Again, I don't mean to offend the OP, some of them might be good coins... but they aren't "monsters" by any means.
  13. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    So you're saying we all have different experiences and differing opinions? Shocking! :p
  14. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes? Supporter

    I'm really not sure how you got that out of my post.

    What I meant to say is "I'm always right and everyone else should just agree."

    Oh... maybe that's the bourbon talking..... ;)

    Seriously, though, "monster" should really be reserved for those coins that are the pinnacle... irreplaceable.... almost unobtainable. Coins like the OP are cleaned, damaged, low grade, rather unimpressive examples of issues which might be monsters, but which just fall short of the impressive standard.
    Johndoe2000$ and micbraun like this.
  15. Santinidollar

    Santinidollar Supporter! Supporter

    No one has mentioned the deep cut on the obverse of the 1893-s.
  16. micbraun

    micbraun coindiccted

    The coin is so heavily worn, does it matter?
    I hope the OPs expectations aren’t too high with this submission.
  17. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

    Can you let eBay know this ??? o_O
    There are monsters- Frankenstein, Dracula, Werewolf, etc... :vamp:
    And then there are MONSTERS- GODZILLA, KING KONG, etc... ;) :cool:

    I get your point, but, "a perfect world this is not." (Yoda)
    It would be great If everyone would use the same terminology. We would need to remove subjectivity, and personal biases first.
    At least we only have one grading standard, and at least that can't change, because it's a "Standard" right ???
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
  18. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

    I could swear I put 62* for the 85cc, not 63*, but the 93s I gave 50 thinking wear + lightish strike.
    The thing I'm not experienced with at all is when certain special dates are graded differently, such as early 80s s minted,, or key dates, etc...
    I don't quite understand the need to change how these should be graded differently.
  19. cpm9ball

    cpm9ball CANNOT RE-MEMBER

    I agree with Jason on this point. Perhaps it would have been better if the OP, instead of using the descriptive "Monster", had used "L@@K".

    BigTee44 likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page