Toned Morgan Purchase (Part 2)

The first set of pictures seems to hint at the luster, while the second set gives much better detail (especially with the hair). I feel like people are bashing this coin too hard... I'm stuck between 64 and 65, but pairing together the detail in the second and the luster in the first, I'm going 65 and not looking back. I have no inclination towards morgans, but judging by some of the MS 63's I have, I see no reason PCGS wouldn't give it at least a 64. Although my coins are NGC...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

:hail:.....................MS64

 

I like the subdued toning. I don't claim to know Morgans very well so I guessed 64, based largely on the photos as presented. I understand you didn't capture the luster but I don't know how to account for the "unseen" luster.

 

I'm downgrading my guess from MS65 to MS64. Just a few more marks that I saw in the previous pics and I was counting on more luster and I'm still just not seeing it... we'll see!!!!!!!!!

 

Alrighty, the 1st is here and the poll has closed.

jello, krispy, Lehigh96, raider34... You all have guessed correctly.

This coin is a MS63, and accurately graded at that. The coin has luster, but it is characteristic of a 63/64 coin. While the fields are very clean, the cheek does have light marks, but they are plentiful. The toning is beautiful, and I had a feeling it would be more vibrant than what the picture showed. I paid less than retail on this coin (keep in mind, from the seller's pics), and plan to flip it, and I should have no problems.

Even though my pictures aren't as accurate as they could be, compared the original seller's pictures I can at least get double of what I paid. Pictures are very key to selling, and knowing how to grade from what can be seen, and having a little luck on your side, you can get more than you paid for!

Thanks for participating in the thread, this actually has been quite fun, for me anyways. Here is the coin.

 

Cool! A very helpful thread. I really liked the approach of doing a guess the grade by sellers pics, then your own before the reveal. Good luck with the flip and I hope you may do more of these polls again. The only thing in the new pic that remains problematic is that stubborn slab glare, which is minimal but present. Great work for the first few days with the new camera equipment.

 

The slab glare is killing me over here.

Here is the best I got so far.

 

Unless that coin really is that drab looking (and maybe even then), try setting your white balance. I think you will be surprised at how much difference it will make when the coin actually looks like silver.

 

My white balance is on pre-set manual, which I have done by taking a picture of the white surface that is behind the coin with the lights on. So in other words, it is set.

 

Ahhh rat's I was too slow but even with the new pic's I would of stayed with a 62

 

I'd say MS-63 IS WHAT PCGS gave it .
rzage

 

And you'd be right.

 

Can't say that I know.

 

I believe the bar code wasn't moved to the front of the label until early 2002 (for the blue label slabs), so that would be the earliest it could have been graded. You would need to see the back of the slab to be more specific with the date.

T$, maybe compare it to Conder's PCGS generations thread.

 

I have never seen that thread before, and now it is has been bookmarked!!! Thank you!
As for when it was graded it appears that it was sometime from November of 04' to mid 2005. My slab is a PCGS 15 and features the obverse of a St. Guadens Double Eagle on the hologram.

 

That is a great thread. Wished I'd known of it sooner too and wish he'd redo that for a thread here as well. Great info there. Thanks.

 

No problem, here's the NGC thread: NGC Slab Varieties

 

I'm running out of space for bookmarks.
Thank you raider!