Under-graded CC Morgan?

What is y'all's opinion on this grade?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think there is a lot of roughness on the cheek. It may make 64, but it isn't worth it. You'd have to be sure of a lock 65 to make it worth it, and that coin is not going to get a 65.

The toning is also really weird - the reverse clearly shows improper rinse after a dip, and the long dark streak across the obverse is highly unusual and quite unattractive. It looks like more dip residue - almost as if someone tried to dip it but leave some of the toning to simulate a crescent shaped bag toning.

It may be accurately graded, but with the roughness on the cheek and the super-odd toning pattern I'd stay away from that thing. You crack it out and resubmit and 50/50 you get questionable toning or some other sort of problem.

 

I am not a huge fan of this coin....I'd want better pics of it before spending anything on it. As physics-fan mentioned, the toning is odd. Personally I'd stay away with the lack of good photos and the toning pattern, but that's just my opinion.

 

Not undergraded at all.......

 

Looks right to me. The toning isn't that attractive and looks to have a lot of hits on the cheek with some chatter in the fields.

 

I'd have to agree with @physics-fan3.14 on his assessment. I love Morgan Dollars and I love these holders, but this is an instance where I would pass unless it sells in the $130.00 neighborhood. Even then, it's not one that I would keep in my collection.

 

IMO it's overgraded.
Too much "noise" on the obverse, particularly on the cheek.
But I'm known as a technical grader, not a market grader so that affects my opinions.

 

Overgraded...ugly toning detracts from value.

 

I think the technical grade is accurate but the black veil across the obverse kills it for me. Pass as others noted...

 

Pass for me. I don't care about old holders, rather the coin inside, and it's not attractive. I wouldn't buy this looking for an upgrade unless I were sending it bulk, but it's just as easy to cherrypick a nice 64 for not much more money.

 

I believe the CAC sticker actually hurt this one.

 

The picture isn’t the most clear (at least in terms of color), but the grade seems fine to me. It might even be a 64, but as mentioned already there isn’t much of a value difference between 63 and 64 for this date.

 

It's labeled a 63 with a CAC but I'm at a 62 with no CAC. Just a little to much with hits and poor toning.

 

I'll bet this coin looked a bit (lot) different when it was slabbed but I think physics nailed it with an improper rinse after a partial dip to emulate crescent toning. On the other hand the black veil was there when CAC looked at it, I guess they only judge technical grade with no regard for eye appeal.

 

Bottom line is that a CAC sticker means that they will honor their published MS63 bid price for the coin. That's it.

 

Looks right, but better are available in the same grade w/CAC. Toning does not add to appeal.

 

not worth what the price is to much wear for me ugly coin

 

ditto

 

63 seems right but may 64 today, but I would not crack it out of that nice old holder.

 

I agree that the coin is ugly, but NGC certified it as MS63, meaning: no wear.

It has many other problems, but "wear" is not one of them...Spark