Home U.S. Coin Forum

Is this a candidate for re-grade? Why is this 1879-O Morgan MS-62? PCGS True View

ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited March 7, 2023 5:54PM in U.S. Coin Forum

I was admiring my collection and looking at this 1879-O MS62 DMPL Morgan. I do believe I've sent this in for regrade or reconsideration so I think PCGS is pretty firm at MS62 DMPL. But Why? Is it the gash on the neck on the obverse? There's a nick in the face/hair line but it's not that significant. The face and cheek are free of significant marks but when viewed at the right angle in the light there is some "chatter" on the face that doesn't really show in this picture. There's a few decent lines on the reverse but I swear I've seen plenty of MS63's that are worse than this. I have plenty of MS62's that look way worse this this. Should I try again or is this nothing more than a solid MS62?

Tagged:

Comments

  • P0CKETCHANGEP0CKETCHANGE Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice coin. The obverse fields are what’s holding it back, IMO.

    Nothing is as expensive as free money.

  • DennisHDennisH Posts: 13,963 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That is a spectacular cheek, but... yes... the field in front of the face is the limiting factor. I suspect that in the right light the scuffing looks pretty severe.

    When in doubt, don't.
  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    Whether it is a 62 technically I don't know. But I have CC morgans dmpl with Cac green graded 64 that don't look that nice in the truview. Based on my limited experience this is a 64 all day long

  • DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Very appealing coin, though I agree with the other comments about the obverse fields. There is a significant spread between 62-63 but I wouldn't grade it 63, perhaps 62+. A trip to the bean factory might be in order if it hasn't already been.

  • TPRCTPRC Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭✭✭

    from the pic, it looks nicer than 62

    Tom

  • 2windy2fish2windy2fish Posts: 805 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Have to agree with @PocketChange the obverse fields are holding the coin back…if you zoom in that crosshatch area is somewhat dramatic

  • logger7logger7 Posts: 8,069 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Hairlines may be what's holding it back. Generally I "see" why a coin graded as it did.

  • fathomfathom Posts: 1,513 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Plus it's at the very least semi-PL, could go PL across the street.

    I would recon.

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @fathom said:
    Plus it's at the very least semi-PL, could go PL across the street.

    I would recon.

    Excellent point. The dmpl part looks close to pl based solely compared to other truviews. Is it possible this is net graded perhaps?

  • DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @fathom said:
    Plus it's at the very least semi-PL, could go PL across the street.

    I would recon.

    It’s already graded DMPL on this side of the street

  • 2windy2fish2windy2fish Posts: 805 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @fathom @dollarfan Im confused by your comments…The OP says the coin is already DMPL..

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @2windy2fish said:
    @fathom @dollarfan Im confused by your comments…The OP says the coin is already DMPL..

    What I was wondering is if it was borderline dmpl but higher grade and got net graded to 62 dmpl? I don't even know if that is a thing

  • DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dollarfan said:

    @2windy2fish said:
    @fathom @dollarfan Im confused by your comments…The OP says the coin is already DMPL..

    What I was wondering is if it was borderline dmpl but higher grade and got net graded to 62 dmpl? I don't even know if that is a thing

    PCGS does not give out the DMPL designation all willy nilly, if it’s designated then it probably meets the standards. If you’re implying that the coin was borderline 63 but was held back by the obverse fields and “net graded” to 62, sure.

  • cheezhedcheezhed Posts: 5,680 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Beautiful coin. You can try sending it in again but at some point it will be money lost through grading fees if it comes back the same. CAC may give you some satisfaction.

    Many happy BST transactions
  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @DeplorableDan said:

    @dollarfan said:

    @2windy2fish said:
    @fathom @dollarfan Im confused by your comments…The OP says the coin is already DMPL..

    What I was wondering is if it was borderline dmpl but higher grade and got net graded to 62 dmpl? I don't even know if that is a thing

    PCGS does not give out the DMPL designation all willy nilly, if it’s designated then it probably meets the standards. If you’re implying that the coin was borderline 63 but was held back by the obverse fields and “net graded” to 62, sure.

    Great posts like this just make me realize how poor of a grader I am. And also how it truly is impossible to grade via photos. I would absolutely try to send this to CAC and see what they say. I would have guessed 64PL if this was a GTG. very interesting post

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    You should have made this a “Guess the Grade” thread. If you had, I bet the average grade guess would have been higher than 62.

    Sir if I may ask, what grade does it look like to you based on the pics alone

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2023 5:51PM

    I think it will CAC but then I also think this should be at least 63. If only they would open up memberships again. I think there's a chance it would gold CAC.

    For anyone questioning the mirrors, I have tons of PL and DMPL coins, and there is no question that this coin is DMPL (my opinion), and PCGS agrees.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,014 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2023 6:06PM

    @dollarfan said:

    @MFeld said:
    You should have made this a “Guess the Grade” thread. If you had, I bet the average grade guess would have been higher than 62.

    Sir if I may ask, what grade does it look like to you based on the pics alone

    Knowing the assigned grade, it’s difficult to provide an objective assessment. But I probably would have guessed 63+. I can’t usually determine with much confidence, whether a coin is PL or DPL/DMPL, rather than non-PL, based on images.

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

  • gumby1234gumby1234 Posts: 5,425 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The fields on the obv and rev are holding it back at 62. If the fields were clean it would be a 64 all day long. Beautiful coin and clean cheek.

    Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM

  • fathomfathom Posts: 1,513 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @2windy2fish said:
    @fathom @dollarfan Im confused by your comments…The OP says the coin is already DMPL..

    Don't be confused, my reading comprehension sucks here.

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭✭✭

    For comparison, here are some other 62 DMPLs which IMO have worse fields:

  • dollarfandollarfan Posts: 315 ✭✭✭

    @ProofCollection said:
    For comparison, here are some other 62 DMPLs which IMO have worse fields:

    Wow I definitely can't grade. I'd say 63 on the 78 and 64 on the 1890. Those are beauties also!

  • coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,243 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Very nice coin. From photos looks much better then 62, but would need to see that obverse scuff in hand to concur if an upgrade is warranted. However I'd take a clean check over field scuff any day. And I'd rather have a 62DMPL then a 63PL. Reverse seems to have squeaked by with DMPL designation.

  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    At 62DMPL I presume PCGS is settled on the DMPL question. If there was a problem with the fields or the cameo appearance they probably would have called it PL and not penalized the grade. My limited experience with the MS62 grade is that it tends to be based on friction/rub and luster issues. With the coin in-hand the OP should be able to render a meaningful opinion on those two attributes.

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Field chatter both sides, ding on Liberty's hairline and two on Eagle's left wing... MS62 IMO. Cheers, RickO

  • marcmoishmarcmoish Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ricko said:
    Field chatter both sides, ding on Liberty's hairline and two on Eagle's left wing... MS62 IMO. Cheers, RickO

    totally agree, rim dings too, I can't see this in a 63, I would leave it as is.
    You can always try to get it beaned, you'd have a better idea about an upgrade I imagine.

  • TrampTramp Posts: 652 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2023 1:40PM

    Those little dings or chatter IMO wouldn't hold it back from a 63, it could or would hold it back from a 64 but not a 63.

    There's truck loads of NGC and PCGS MS63's that look like this and his Morgan is way better:

    USAF (Ret.) 1985 - 2005. E-4B Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief and Contracting Officer.
    My current Registry sets:
    ✓ Everyman Mint State Carson City Morgan Dollars (1878 – 1893)
    ✓ Everyman Mint State Lincoln Cents (1909 – 1958)
    ✓ Morgan Dollar GSA Hoard (1878 – 1891)

  • OldIndianNutKaseOldIndianNutKase Posts: 2,700 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You should crack it and submit it Raw Across the street for a truly unbiased opinion. Then, if you really want it in PCGS plastic you submit for cross.

    OINK

  • DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭✭✭

    For the record, I wouldn't be blown back if the coin were in a 63 holder, I just don't see it as a strong 63 based on comparison to coin facts examples. Forum comments are always conservative, and not many of us here are going to advocate that you spend more money trying to upgrade if the coin wasn't successful in the past. By all means OP, if the cost is a nominal expense to you then go for it, I would be happy to see you get the desired result you're looking for. As far as ROI is concerned, I think a trip to CAC could be a better investment.

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DeplorableDan said:
    For the record, I wouldn't be blown back if the coin were in a 63 holder, I just don't see it as a strong 63 based on comparison to coin facts examples. Forum comments are always conservative, and not many of us here are going to advocate that you spend more money trying to upgrade if the coin wasn't successful in the past. By all means OP, if the cost is a nominal expense to you then go for it, I would be happy to see you get the desired result you're looking for. As far as ROI is concerned, I think a trip to CAC could be a better investment.

    I agree. A few people here I think have pointed out why it is MS62 and I see it now. I think this coin is lucky in that the imperfections are in ideal locations, but they are still there. I will send this to CAC, but another regrade would be a waste of money IMO.

    If'/when I am able to send it to CAC I will post the results here either way.

  • conrad99conrad99 Posts: 345 ✭✭✭

    @dollarfan said:

    @ProofCollection said:
    For comparison, here are some other 62 DMPLs which IMO have worse fields:

    Wow I definitely can't grade. I'd say 63 on the 78 and 64 on the 1890. Those are beauties also!

    Though I agree it's a beauty, I'd probably give that 1890 a 55. Since the host said MS it must be a weak strike producing the smooth breast etc. Likely endemic to the issue, I expect.

  • LeeBoneLeeBone Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 9, 2023 6:42AM

    By the TruView pic, looks better than 62. The mirrors do not show as a DMPL in that pic though. No doubt it is, as our host said it is. Would like to see some in hand pics also.
    If you would have did a GTG I would have said minimum 63 based on the TV.
    I also like the 79-O Date/MM.
    Nice coin B)

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file