Whizzed Or Dipped 1890-CC Morgan "MS-63?"

First post, long-time lurker, not a newbie but need polish (npi). Not a new thread, but the old ones from a search lacked the images.

I took a chance and won this auction:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3947012791 , a raw 1890-CC Morgan advertised as MS-63. I'm less an investor and more of a collector, so I don't mind paying top dollar as long as I get something approximating what I think I'm bidding on. I usually knock off at least a couple grades on raw eBay Morgans, but generally have pretty good luck with my purchases since I scrutinize feedback, am picky about the coins upon which I bid, and contact the sellesr before bidding. With this Morgan, the issue is in doubt.

The seller had a few too many neg feedbacks with several on whizzed coins and had no stated return policy, sooooooo... I emailed her and asked if the Morgan had been cleaned or was otherwise a problem coin, and asked if she had a return policy. Her answer: "COIN IS ALL ORIGINAL." (no qualifications); no answer on her return policy. I still took a chance.

I got my (latex gloved) hands on the coin earlier this evening (it's now 0100 MST) and it ain't gonna make MS-63 by PCGS and NGC standards; if it's not altered, it might make MS-60/61, maybe even MS-62 if I catch PCGS on a good hair day. But what's fishy is its luster - it cartwheels, but just doesn't seem right; it's kind of a flat cartwheel. I've compared it with some of my PCGS and NGC MS-61 and 62 Morgans and it's close, but not exact. But, no signs of whizzing under a 6X magnifier, but seems to have too much luster for a dipped coin. I don't have another MS 1890-CC with which to compare.

Can a dipped, whizzed, or other enhancement altered Morgan still cartwheel or have luster, weak as it might be if it's done with finesse? Any way I can tell for sure before I send it in (nearest dealer is 110 miles away; sorry, not an option)? Opinions based on the eBay pics? (I know - almost impossible to tell anything from an image).

No sense scanning it myself although I might try tomorrow if the thread warrants; her pics (off a SONY "MAVICA") are better than anything I can do. Maybe she's right; it just might be original. Well, I'll find out when I get it back from PCGS; there's always ANACS. If it's truly a problem coin, it won't be the first and won't be the last on which I got burnt. But, I really would like the Forum's thoughts and suggestions.

BTW, I like this Forum much better than the eBay coins forum: much easier navigation. It's also nice to see familiar usernames, and see some new ones (incl AC6H de K2FRD/VO2FS). More professional also IMNSHO.

Tnx de Fred

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

1890-CC Dollar

Good Morning Fred,

Up at 2:34am PST and was reading some posts. Before I completed reading your post I looked at the coin your displayed. Not having the coin in hand and using your description I feel that the coin has been dipped. But some time ago. Add to this I think it was improperly washed or rinsed afterward. When this happens the residue leaves a "Steel Grey" look yet the cartwheel effect still shows through.

As what to do..? I'm not really sure. If it were my piece and I suspected this I would probably have it "curated". I don't really know the long term effects of this improper rinse and residue does.

Please keep in my that this in my opinion only. Maybe some of the others have different viewspoints.

catman

 

Hi Fred and welcome to the forum. I thought the coin looked a little flat in the pictures but that happens with scans. Digital pictures are much better for capturing luster. I have seen dipped coins that retain some cartwheel luster but, as you have said, the luster is flatter and "just doesn't seem right". Unfortunately, given the sellers questionable feedback and the fact the that the coin doesn't look right in hand, I would tend to think that you have a coin that has been cleaned (probably dipped).

If it comes back from PCGS/NGC bodybagged, I would definitely report it to the CCW on eBay and let them know that the seller is misrepresenting their coins. Your report coupled with the feedback she has already received will hopefully cause them to take some kind of action against her. They will act on auctions that are already ended. Here is the link:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/selling-coins.html

Good luck. I hope I'm wrong and your coin comes back slabbed

 

Hi Fred,
I looked at the auction pics, and I have seen this seller on Ebay before.
A MS63 1890CC is valued at 1050 dollars according to PCGS value guide...and from the Redbook the same coin lists at 650 dollars.....which would make your a good buy if it comes back as a MS63........the coin looks pretty good in the pics.....but they can be very deceptive......lighting and various imaging filters can add or detract alot from a coins actual appearance. I think that if the coin does not grade out or comes back in a bodybag......I would contact the seller first...firmly, but politely stating the situation and asking for an immediate refund of total purchase price. If no reply or if they do not wish to comply..then report to Ebay.......I have had to do this only a couple of times.......and in both instances....I received very positive results. Good Luck with your coin.......it is a very nice piece of history!!
Coin nut4

 

I seperated some of your thoughts so that I could answer each.
Paying top dollar for what you want is a great idea. One I wish more collectors would realize. Our own GDJMSP sets the perfect example of how a collector should look for and then buy coins.

Knocking off a couple points for raw coins is a technique that I hear often from Ebay buyers. While this logic sounds good, it often is not the best route. Using your coin as an example, if the coin is indeed net graded with anything less than MS-62 you will be upside down in the purchase. Problem coins are always harder to sell. A net grade coin in a Anacs holder will sell for less than a simular grade. ie: MS-62 versus Net grade MS-62.

Scrutinizing the seller. Here is a very good proceedure. Although it appears that you did not follow your own advice in this case. As one who does not deal on Ebay, I find it interesting that many here base so much on the feedback rating. With the current system of rating a seller, it seems as if the process of picking a seller solely on feedback rating is not the best way of going about it. In your case, the seller has a rating of 99.7% On the surface, this sounds like a good seller. However, you must consider how many people chose not to leave a neg, and how many just do not realize how much they lost in their transaction.

 

Repeated dipping in an acid type coin dip can produce the subdued luster effect you are describing. Sounds like that could be the culprit. I don't think PCGS or NGC will grade it, ANACS would probably describe as 'CLEANED' and give it a 'NET' grade of MS60 or less if over-dipping is the problem.

 

CoinNut,
In theory this seems like the best course of action, however, this seller has sold a number of misrepresented coins and obviously they have not been reported to eBay because they have refunded, or the buyer did not know that their items should have been reported to eBay in order to protect future buyers. The feedback system is not the best. This particular seller does not appear to leave feedback first which means that a buyer may not leave negative feedback even if it is warranted because of the fear of retaliation. One way or another, this seller is misrepresenting the coins that they sell and should be forced to either honestly represent their coins or sell elsewhere.

This is not in an effort to torment this seller but to make eBay a safer place for the collector. Selling cleaned/whizzed coins as MS coins is as much of a scam as the China sellers peddling their counterfeits and needs to be stopped. Ebay does not pay attention to individual feedback remarks but will look at every report made to the CCW. Also keep in mind that reports made to the CCW are anonymous; eBay is very careful to protect the identity of the reporters, so there is no fear of retaliation.

 

Thanks all for the fast and introspective responses. I'm still waking up after a short night, but will be crafting a creative artform message (read: tactfullly letting her know I'm POed) to the seller. And yes, I'm sure if I post a negative FB, she'll retaliate and I've got a clean record so far. EBay's feedback system needs improvement; perhaps automatic withholding of feedback posts until BOTH are posted?

Query based on the consensus that the Morgan was dipped: is this something Numistmatist Conservation Service might correct?

I've got some running around to do (USPO, groceries, notifications a cousin just died - the usual things), then I'll try a scan and post it once I figure out how.

Many thanks so far.

MorganFred

PS - In the instance you haven't guessed, I've had a lifelong love affair with Lady Liberty on a Morgan.

 

Unfortunately, since dipping removes a small amount of the actual surface, I don't think NCS will be able to do anything about it. If it was improperly rinsed or if there is residue, they may be able to help with that, but I think the damage has been done.

 

Didididit didit and welcome to the forum Fred.

First warning!

Second warning!

Third and final warning!

I hate to say it pal, but IMHO you blew it big time.




BTW - 2FRD, incredible luck or made to order?

 

Hey Roy! I was wondering when you'd join the QSO. Yes, K2FRD is customized; I got bored with my old 2x3 callsign. Check me out in QRZ.com.

And also yes, I may have stepped in my own doo-doo on this one; I presumed on her personal honesty when she stated it was in original condition before I bid (I'm a trusting Eagle Scout and give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise). I just sent the seller an L1NM (Level One = Nice Message) asking her if she would take it back for a refund if PCGS body-bags it. Level Two message becomes Less Than Nice if she refuses. Now we'll see how honest she really is...

73 de Fred K2FRD (my Canadian callsign VO2FS is also a vanity call, but that's all they issue for Labrador since there's so few hams in VO2-land and Canada permits choices for callsigns upon passing the exams.)

 

I just FTPed to my own website scans of the obverse and reverse of the possible problem Morgan (I still haven't figured out how to attach or embed an image here, but this seems easier anyway). I used 400dpi, so the files and images are large (about 155kb each, compressed), but you can see it up close and personal. For comparison, I side-by-side scanned an 1884-CC MS-61 slabbed by PCGS which DOES cartwheel nicely and normally. It may not be a fair comparison since I'm scanning through the slab. BTW, while scanning, I noticed the reverse of the 1890-CC cartwheels much better than, and in marked contrast to the obverse.

I dunno. Too close for me to call. Maybe PCGS won't body-bag it. (And maybe someone will buy that bridge I've been trying to peddle for years.)

I guess I also wonder why anyone would dip or otherwise try to mess with what was once a beautiful coin.

http://homepage.mac.com/k2frd/1890CCobv.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/k2frd/1890CCrev.jpg

Comments and opinions much appreciated.

Thanks!

Fred

 

Until recently, dipping and general cleaning was not a taboo. 80 to 90% of all 19th century and older coins have seen some cleaning. In today's standards, this is bad. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. With your new scans, I am confident in giving you the advice of not submitting this coin to PCGS or NGC. If you want it in a slab, Anacs is the only way to go.

 

Sorry, Fred, but I have to agree with ND. For what it's worth, your pictures are much better than hers, though

 

Not Leaving Feedback...!! Yikes..!

 

Hi catman, I know I'm not right about alot of things, and this may be one, but just think of how many sellers have feedback that looks excellent, only because a number of buyers didn't leave neg. feedback on a bad deal for fear of getting neg feedback in return.

 

I can see your arguement, and I agree. The only way my idea would work would be if ebay instituted Morgan Freds idea of not posting feedback from either party until both sides have submitted feedback for the other. Say 30 days after the end of auction if one of the parties have not left feedback, then the party who did leave feedback would have it posted, and the party who didn't leave feedback would have a point deducted from their rating.

It is just an idea that came to mind when I was reading MorganFreds post and I haven't thought it over too hard. Just seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

Just a tweek to ndgoflo's suggestion. Give the buyer and seller 30 days to post feedback. Keep the feedback unposted until:

a) both have posted , or
b) 30 days expire.

After 30 days, prevent any further feedback. No need to penalize for not leaving feedback . That should alleviate the fear of retaliatory feedback.

Bill