How did this coin get a 68+ ??

conrad99

If that ain't enough, seller wants half a million for it.

What grade would you give it? I'm thinking maybe 62 or 63?

TomB

How do you come up with MS62 or MS63 for that coin?

ifthevamzarockin

cameonut2011

The surfaces are very clean and deserving of the grade and perhaps even a 69. The toning and discontinuity are distracting to me and probably the reason it didn’t grade higher. In short, the grade is reasonable even though I certainly wouldn’t call it a ravishing beauty.

conrad99

@ifthevamzarockin said:

Wow, it's even worse than I thought. There are some appealing zones such as the right obverse field, but overall the coin is something of a train wreck. ETA: All those scrapes and striations on the reverse run roughshod right over the device so someone will have to explain that to me. Can't be die polishing so what is it?

lkenefic

The breaks in toning are a little distracting but other than the marks under the M in UNUM, I really don't see any noteworthy contact marks.

cameonut2011

@TomB said:
How do you come up with MS62 or MS63 for that coin?

I think he may be mistaking discontinuities in the toning for hits, but still that is an extremely harsh grade for it.

conrad99

Of course, this thread would have been more productive if I'd had the sense to post the coin without the grade and provenance, as a GTG.

cameonut2011

This is a 63. Do you think the 68+ really looks like this?

conrad99

@cameonut2011 said:
This is a 63. Do you think the 68+ really looks like this?

I think that looks better than the 68+.
As do these

Hmm, I may try to buy that last one..

gumby1234

Apart from some strange and ugly toning that Morgan is in amazing condition.

cheezhed

One of those things you just have to see in hand.

JBK

Agree with most of the above assessments. The "scrapes" are just toning variations.

bigjpst

If you think the coins you posted are nicer than the 68+ Fine. Too each their own. But if you believe the coins you posted are higher grade, then I suggest you learn to tell the difference between toning and contact marks.

lilolme

This coin has been around. I remember seeing it when auctioned through Legend. It was previously a 68 but when the plus grading came around it got upgraded.

It has the light action in the obverse 3 o/c field, a couple small ticks on neck and reverse inside field about 8 o/c a few more light marks. The cheek is smooth. The color is close to the pictures from what I recall. The strike is not full but good.

Heritage 2009
https://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/1885-cc-1-ms68-pcgs/a/1121-4973.s?hdnJumpToLot=1&x=0&y=0

Legend 2015
https://legendauctions.hibid.com/lot/19846119/-1-1885-cc-pcgs-ms68--cac-ex-jack-lee

It went to the Ponderosa pcgs CC registry set which is still the highest rated cc set.
Then it went to the Illinois Morgan set.
Since the Illinois set was retired it has been out there for sale (through Barry S). It went to GC auction twice with a reserve bid of 290K hammer if I recall correctly. Nobody hit the bid (twice). Now back at BarryS for sale asking 490K.

AUandAG

Dang, another Ricko.

bob

cameonut2011

@AUandAG said:
Dang, another Ricko.

bob

No. Ricko is realistic in his assessments even though he hates toning. It is one thing to say I hate the coin in the OP (I am not a fan of the toning either) and another to call it 5+ points over graded.

cameonut2011

@conrad99 said:
Of course, this thread would have been more productive if I'd had the sense to post the coin without the grade and provenance, as a GTG.

Had this had been a GTG, I would have guessed a 68 (no plus). There probably would have been a few guesses in the 67-67+ range, penalizing the toning. I’d be shocked if more than one or two graded it 65 or lower.

thefinn

@conrad99 said:

@ifthevamzarockin said:

Wow, it's even worse than I thought. There are some appealing zones such as the right obverse field, but overall the coin is something of a train wreck. ETA: All those scrapes and striations on the reverse run roughshod right over the device so someone will have to explain that to me. Can't be die polishing so what is it?

The striations were in the strip of silver that was punched out into blanks. They weren’t totally struck out on the highest parts of the coin, which means the design in the die didn’t totally touch the eagle’s breast. Very beautiful coin with mottled toning.

BryceM

Pretty coin. If Jack Lee owned it, that says something. The stuff by the "M' in "UNUM" bothers me more than anything else about the coin, but only a little.

To me the surfaces and luster are amazing, the strike OK, and eye appeal neutral to slightly positive.

This is a screen grab from a PCGS video on Mint State grading. If you use this, I'm not sure how you'd ever get to an MS62 or MS63 grade. Personally, I think the coin was just fine at MS68, but I haven't seen it in-hand.

fathom

I would presume the luster in hand is extremely flashy coupled with the lack of any ticks or even light scratches.

It is difficult to capture with images the luster flash and some photos will accentuate the toning streaks.

jmlanzaf

@conrad99 said:

If that ain't enough, seller wants half a million for it.

What grade would you give it? I'm thinking maybe 62 or 63?

There's nary a mark on it.

You may find the toning distracting... or not. But toning well not drop it to 63.

And the luster is incredible. It's a 67 on a bad day... if you're drunk and have spots on your glasses.

jmlanzaf

@conrad99 said:

@cameonut2011 said:
This is a 63. Do you think the 68+ really looks like this?

Hmm, I may try to buy that last one..

Don't quit your day job. Lol

ricko

I would agree with the grade, though not sure I would (personally) add a +.... Cheers, RickO

ElmerFusterpuck

Jeez, someone either needs a new pair of eyes, or they have a very scratched up screen.

7Jaguars

Price dependent it might be a 63 - what I mean is that the 490k price is ludicrous but nowadays, who knows?
I see a 67/68 borderline.

cameonut2011

@7Jaguars said:
Price dependent it might be a 63 -

?

what I mean is that the 490k price is ludicrous but nowadays, who knows

Most prices on condition “rarities” are. I’d personally rather have a 68 (last sale around $50k) or a 67+ for around $25k. Regardless the coin in the OP is worth many multiples of a MS63 coin to most collectors and even to dealers (including the beanist).

edwardjulio

Wonder what the OP opines on this 67+ with Gold CAC?

MFeld

@edwardjulio said:



Wonder what the OP opines on this 67+ with Gold CAC?

That 1854-O half looks very familiar. Unless I'm mistaken, I bought it out of the Buddy Ebsen sale in 1987, while working for Mark Salzberg, before either of us joined NGC. Assuming it's the same coin, we submitted it to NGC, where it graded MS68 and I believe that it was the first classic type coin they had graded that high at the time.

Eldorado9

@Conrad99 You are confusing surface level toning with surface damage.

Ablinky

This coin is amazing in hand. I remember a thread with virtually the same subject popped up when the coin was announced as part of the Coronet collection that Legend put together several years ago.

BuffaloIronTail

@lkenefic said:
The breaks in toning are a little distracting but other than the marks under the M in UNUM, I really don't see any noteworthy contact marks.

The absence of marks and clean fields goes a long way toward achieving the grade it got.

Pete

rays

@conrad99 said:

If that ain't enough, seller wants half a million for it.

What grade would you give it? I'm thinking maybe 62 or 63?

I agree the grade is appropriate but the asking price seems too high. Given the last known (2015) sale of this coin for $135K , the current PCGS Price Guide valuation of $300K seems highly speculative, and largely based upon the asking price of $493K by the current dealer. What would this coin bring in a public auction today? Its hard to say.

hbarbee

I believe that if you review the eye appeal segment of the grading series, this coin was probably rated "good or positive" which would have supported the grade.

logger7

No doubt outstanding eye appeal, electric luster, etc.. The quest for white coins is apparently what drove the notorious dipping of the key date other Jack Lee pedigree coin.

LanceNewmanOCC

@logger7 said:
No doubt outstanding eye appeal, electric luster, etc.. The quest for white coins is apparently what drove the notorious dipping of the key date other Jack Lee pedigree coin.

.
the 89-cc? i hope not.

Elcontador

There are plenty of high graded ugly coins. Look at MS 68 Roosevelt Dimes. It helps if the coin is pedigreed.

That said, CC Morgans are generally very baggy. This coin has amazingly clean surfaces. I don't like it, but I'm not going to disagree with the grade. How many CC Morgans have you seen with surfaces this clean?

braddick

@Elcontador said:
There are plenty of high graded ugly coins. Look at MS 68 Roosevelt Dimes. It helps if the coin is pedigreed.

That said, CC Morgans are generally very baggy. This coin has amazingly clean surfaces. I don't like it, but I'm not going to disagree with the grade. How many CC Morgans have you seen with surfaces this clean?

You inadvertently bring up a good point.
Liking a coin doesn't equate to a higher (if you do like it) or a lower (if you don't like it) grade.

TPRC

I think the 67+ seated half and the 68+ CC morgan are absolutely fantastic specimens with toning that shows off their originality. I suspect they look a lot better in hand.

Relaxn

@conrad99 said:

If that ain't enough, seller wants half a million for it.

What grade would you give it? I'm thinking maybe 62 or 63?

You are looking at the toning breaks as if they are contact marks but that is not the case. This Morgan has coruscating luster and is a booming coin. The surfaces are pristine.
The breaks you are seeing are in the toning and not in the luster.

amwldcoin

@edwardjulio said:



Wonder what the OP opines on this 67+ with Gold CAC?

There aren't many coins this age that I would consider 100% non-dipped and original, this one fits the bill!

Bigbuck1975

This can’t be a serious post!! The coin from a contact perspective looks stellar.

gumby1234

@Elcontador said:
There are plenty of high graded ugly coins. Look at MS 68 Roosevelt Dimes. It helps if the coin is pedigreed.

That said, CC Morgans are generally very baggy. This coin has amazingly clean surfaces. I don't like it, but I'm not going to disagree with the grade. How many CC Morgans have you seen with surfaces this clean?

Hey don't be picking on Roosies.


49 S MS68

EDIT- not pedigreed and I've owned it for over 30 years.

Connecticoin

I don’t take issue with the grade either - however, the asking price seems to be wishful thinking given it last sold for $135k not too long ago, and it failed to sell for $290k twice since then.

derryb

shoulda got a PL as well.

MFeld

@derryb said:
shoulda got a PL as well.

I bet it would have, already if it deserved it.

[Deleted User]

@conrad99 said:

@ifthevamzarockin said:

Wow, it's even worse than I thought. There are some appealing zones such as the right obverse field, but overall the coin is something of a train wreck. ETA: All those scrapes and striations on the reverse run roughshod right over the device so someone will have to explain that to me. Can't be die polishing so what is it?

That's streaky toning, not marks in the metal.

lilolme

Just for the extra view of it, here is Legend auctions photo
.
https://legendauctions.hibid.com/lot/19846119/-1-1885-cc-pcgs-ms68--cac-ex-jack-lee
.

jmlanzaf

@Lalo_Salamanca said:
When it comes to grading it doesn’t matter what the coin looks like. What matters is who you know.

Nonsense.

Beware the ban hammer

msc672

I don't know if it's the distraction or what, but I think the mottled toning takes a few pounds off of her. I'm sold.

Omegaraptor

I cannot disagree or agree with the coin's grade as I have not seen it in person.

All I can say is it is an exceptional Morgan and there is a reason Jack Lee owned it. Do I think it is worth $500k? No. But that is to me. To someone else, it very well may be.