Home› U.S. Coin Forum

DMPL CC MORGAN question, pics included

dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum

hello, i received this 1882 CC morgan graded MS62 DMPL today. I bought it immediately when i saw it as i thought it was severely undergraded. i failed to notice the rim ding on the upper obverse. ALSO there is something weird going on with the 2 in the date


your thoughts are welcome and i posted a 63 dmpl and a 64 dmpl that i both feel are accurately graded for comparison. please opine and thanks!

Comments

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    here is a 64 dmpl

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    here is a 63 dmpl

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    ooops and reverse of OP 1882 dmpl

  • mcarney1173mcarney1173 Posts: 925 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Would need to see pictures of the reverse of your coin to make an accurate evaluation. However, the obverse of your coin does appear to have very clean fields. I think the grade is held back by the scratches across the face. I don't see the rim ding you are referring to. From the obverse alone, I think it is accurately graded at MS62.

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    The rim ding is in about the 1 o'clock position. Are you seeing 3 pics in first post? I may have posted wrong. Also the reverse is posted in post right above yours

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    The "2" in the date has me stumped

  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 8,442 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 18, 2022 1:02PM

    The thing that disturbs me are the many
    scratches / hairlines on the face. Possibly slide marks. This coin is nowhere near MS 63 and surprised they did not grade it MS61. I also see the rim ding.

    I would call it a C Coin (low end 62). It is is in no way undergraded. Look how the 78-CC 63 DMPL just blows your 62 away!

    I would suggest you take the ANA grading course and review the grading photos provided by our hosts.

    Almost or all the money has probably been squeezed out of the OGH Hobby which has been going on for decades. What seems left to me are for the most part avg quality to low end pieces. You CANT make generalization about TPG holders! It’s the coin not the holder.

    At a recent show setup at looked around the bourse for PCGS OGH coins. Probably looked at a dozen not a one was undergraded imo plus the sellers asking high retail money.

    Coins & Currency
  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @Cougar1978 said:
    The thing that disturb are the scratches / hairlines on the face. This coin is nowhere near MS 63 and surprised they did not grade it MS61. I also see the rim ding.

    I would call it a C Coin (low end 62). It is is in no way undergraded.

    Thanks for the reply any ideas on the 2 in the date. And how does the OP coin compare to the other examples

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    I also saw the scratches in the pics. I can't see them in hand. Trying to find my magnifier

  • FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 3,502 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The "2" is perfectly normal and matches every other 1882 dollar. I would suggest that you take the time to look at CoinFacts and compare the coins before you buy them. Use your free resources.

    I think the grade is fair based on your pictures, although the fields look a bit weak for DMPL.

    Coin Photographer.

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    I'm also starting to wonder if the RIM DING I'm seeing isn't part of the holder?? Do these old rattlers have little prongs??

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,984 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The marks on the face look to be slide-marks and those, alone should limit the grade to (approximately) the assigned grade. MS62 looks accurate to me.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    The marks on the face look to be slide-marks and those, alone should limit the grade to (approximately) the assigned grade. MS62 looks accurate to me.

    Thank you! Are you able to see the closeup picture of the "2" in the first post (separate pic) I was hoping you would reply so I could ask what you think about it

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @FlyingAl said:
    The "2" is perfectly normal and matches every other 1882 dollar. I would suggest that you take the time to look at CoinFacts and compare the coins before you buy them. Use your free resources.

    I think the grade is fair based on your pictures, although the fields look a bit weak for DMPL.

    Thanks for the reply. In the pics are you not seeing the "block" at the bottom. ? Of the digit?

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @FlyingAl said:
    The "2" is perfectly normal and matches every other 1882 dollar. I would suggest that you take the time to look at CoinFacts and compare the coins before you buy them. Use your free resources.

    I think the grade is fair based on your pictures, although the fields look a bit weak for DMPL.

    i have probably 40ish mint state grade 1882 carson citys and none have this thing going on with the "2"

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    The marks on the face look to be slide-marks and those, alone should limit the grade to (approximately) the assigned grade. MS62 looks accurate to me.

    sir, i posted the closeup of the date "2"

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,984 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dollarfan said:

    @MFeld said:
    The marks on the face look to be slide-marks and those, alone should limit the grade to (approximately) the assigned grade. MS62 looks accurate to me.

    sir, i posted the closeup of the date "2"

    Sorry, I can’t tell what that is.
    Take a deep breath and relax - you’ve already posted to this thread more than a dozen times. Maybe someone else will have an answer for you.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 11,565 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think that it was silently net graded as MS62, the coin has a great strike but the hairlines on both sides should have resulted in a details grade, and might if this was being graded today. MS62 is fair to almost generous and it is not a coin I would ever consider cracking.

    Yes the rattler holder did/does have small prongs to hold the coin, however, the photos indicate this MS62 does have some minor rim damage at around 1pm on the obv.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think the 2 has a contact mark on it as I think see pushed up 'metal' horizontally across the bottom or just above the actual bottom the 2.

    The cheek slide marks or hairlines that you say you don't see in hand is probably because of lighting. Try tilting the coin around until they show up. You could probably do the same thing in a photo and make the slide marks disappear in a photo.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
    .
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed

    RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • slider23slider23 Posts: 658 ✭✭✭✭

    On the 2 your photos are not clear enough to tell exactly what is going on. It could be a hit and displaced metal and/or a die fill and part of the 2 is missing. Best to keep the photos to the subject coin. It get confusing with so many different photos. Most of the members do not need an example to compare grading.

  • FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 3,502 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 18, 2022 4:26PM

    I’m still not seeing anything different with the two. Best of luck with trying to get an answer.

    Coin Photographer.

  • lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
    .
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed

    RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • AUandAGAUandAG Posts: 24,803 ✭✭✭✭✭

    minor die chip I think. 62 looks about right to me.
    bob :)

    Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
  • skier07skier07 Posts: 4,068 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Grading standards for DMPL’s have changed and lots of DMPL’s graded 30 years ago would not grade as such today.

  • pmh1nicpmh1nic Posts: 3,295 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I see what you mean about the 2. It appears as if the base of the 2 has been pushed upward and not in line with the base of the other numbers in the date. The base of the 2 also appears thicker than the base of other 1882-CC coins I've looked at.

    The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
  • jesbrokenjesbroken Posts: 10,134 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree with the current grade. Slide marks are what appears to be across the face and that is a shame as it was nice looking upgrade without them.
    Jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • ChrisH821ChrisH821 Posts: 6,570 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As noted above, slide marks as severe as those will limit the grade. Overall a nice looking coin though.

    Collector, occasional seller

  • SlickCoinsSlickCoins Posts: 658 ✭✭✭

    Awesome coins :)
    The 1882 looks like a 3 under the two to me,,, JMO
    Thanks for sharing

  • justindanjustindan Posts: 775 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just got this back from PCGS. Graded 63 DMPL for comparison.

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The grade looks accurate IMO based on the pictures. The 2 appears to have a 'hit' by the base, but would need better pictures to ascertain that opinion. Cheers, RickO

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...