My ugly-toned 1878-S Already back from Grade Shop

cheezbean

First of all, I never claimed it to be flawless. I said almost flawless. Of the five Morgans that I submitted this morning, this one, IMO, had the cleanest fields and cheeks. I honestly thought at least a MS65. I had 2 other (not as nice CC Morgans) that got a 64+ and a 65. I was just unsure if the toning was natural or artificial. Here it is. Not ugly at all to me.

bsshog40

Probably the hits on the fields in front of liberty kept it from 65. I think you got a good grade at 64. Your pics weren't the best for determining toning. Looks like PCGS made the decision. Lol

cheezhed

Looks accurately graded to me. Nice coin.

cheezbean

@cheezhed said:
Looks accurately graded to me. Nice coin.

Thanks Cheez

ricko

The fingerprints, hit on cheek and chatter in field make it a 64.... Are the reverse scratches (by the E in ONE and across the wreath) on the coin or the slab?? Cheers, RickO

skier07

The hit on the cheek isn’t helping the grade. Looks pretty accurately graded to me.

Some folks might like the toning and others might dislike it. I think it’s neutral.

Atcarroll

It was difficult to see the surfaces through the toning in the photos from the other thread, but you had it in hand so you were in a better position to determine a probable grade than people who only saw the pics. I'm glad it worked out for you.

291fifth

Now that it is slabbed ... sell it as fast as you can.

Jimnight

@291fifth said:
Now that it is slabbed ... sell it as fast as you can.

This.

steveben

looks like someone fingerprinted it by pressing it into an album. then it toned

mattniss

Beauty is in the eye of the coin holder, I guess. Solid grade. The right audience will undoubtedly pay a premium above normal prices for a white coin in the same grade.

1madman

I think you did quite well as I thought the coin would max grade as a 63, but I get the feeling you may have paid a lot of money for this coin thinking it was a ~67? Hope I’m wrong.

cheezbean

@1madman said:
I think you did quite well as I thought the coin would max grade as a 63, but I get the feeling you may have paid a lot of money for this coin thinking it was a ~67? Hope I’m wrong.

No, I paid 75. The pics were very bad, and I took a chance. It was an online auction with bad pics.

cheezbean

@ricko said:
The fingerprints, hit on cheek and chatter in field make it a 64.... Are the reverse scratches (by the E in ONE and across the wreath) on the coin or the slab?? Cheers, RickO

There are fingerprints on the obverse. The chatter is on the reverse. The obverse has really clean fields. As far as the hit on the cheek, it disappears when you rotate it under magnification. I'm not sure if its in the toning or not. If it is indeed a scratch, it is very very light. I'm just glad it didn't get a Details. Wish it graded higher.

mikee999

@cheezbean said:
First of all, I never claimed it to be flawless. I said almost flawless. Of the five Morgans that I submitted this morning, this one, IMO, had the cleanest fields and cheeks. I honestly thought at least a MS65. I had 2 other (not as nice CC Morgans) that got a 64+ and a 65. I was just unsure if the toning was natural or artificial. Here it is. Not ugly at all to me.

nice coin & toning; it’s been my experience & view both PCGS & NGC are more forgiving & generous on CC Morgans.

MFeld

@mikee999 said:

@cheezbean said:
First of all, I never claimed it to be flawless. I said almost flawless. Of the five Morgans that I submitted this morning, this one, IMO, had the cleanest fields and cheeks. I honestly thought at least a MS65. I had 2 other (not as nice CC Morgans) that got a 64+ and a 65. I was just unsure if the toning was natural or artificial. Here it is. Not ugly at all to me.

nice coin & toning; it’s been my experience & view both PCGS & NGC are more forgiving & generous on CC Morgans.

Quite a few people feel as you do about the leniency for CC Morgan’s. But that has nothing to do with the coin in this thread as it’s an S -mint.

mikee999

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@cheezbean said:
First of all, I never claimed it to be flawless. I said almost flawless. Of the five Morgans that I submitted this morning, this one, IMO, had the cleanest fields and cheeks. I honestly thought at least a MS65. I had 2 other (not as nice CC Morgans) that got a 64+ and a 65. I was just unsure if the toning was natural or artificial. Here it is. Not ugly at all to me.

nice coin & toning; it’s been my experience & view both PCGS & NGC are more forgiving & generous on CC Morgans.

Quite a few people feel as you do about the leniency for CC Morgan’s. But that has nothing to do with the coin in this thread as it’s an S -mint.

i was just following up with the op’s comments re: CC Morgan.

MFeld

@mikee999 said:

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@cheezbean said:
First of all, I never claimed it to be flawless. I said almost flawless. Of the five Morgans that I submitted this morning, this one, IMO, had the cleanest fields and cheeks. I honestly thought at least a MS65. I had 2 other (not as nice CC Morgans) that got a 64+ and a 65. I was just unsure if the toning was natural or artificial. Here it is. Not ugly at all to me.

nice coin & toning; it’s been my experience & view both PCGS & NGC are more forgiving & generous on CC Morgans.

Quite a few people feel as you do about the leniency for CC Morgan’s. But that has nothing to do with the coin in this thread as it’s an S -mint.

i was just following up with the op’s comments re: CC Morgan.

I see. It can be helpful and less confusing to use the “Quote” function at the bottom of the post to which you’re replying.

mikee999

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@cheezbean said:
First of all, I never claimed it to be flawless. I said almost flawless. Of the five Morgans that I submitted this morning, this one, IMO, had the cleanest fields and cheeks. I honestly thought at least a MS65. I had 2 other (not as nice CC Morgans) that got a 64+ and a 65. I was just unsure if the toning was natural or artificial. Here it is. Not ugly at all to me.

nice coin & toning; it’s been my experience & view both PCGS & NGC are more forgiving & generous on CC Morgans.

Quite a few people feel as you do about the leniency for CC Morgan’s. But that has nothing to do with the coin in this thread as it’s an S -mint.

i was just following up with the op’s comments re: CC Morgan.

I see. It can be helpful and less confusing to use the “Quote” function at the bottom of the post to which you’re replying.

Mr Feld please scroll up and read my response again. There you will SEE I clearly quoted the op’s comment re CC Morgans prior to making my comments. Thank you.

mikee999

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@cheezbean said:
First of all, I never claimed it to be flawless. I said almost flawless. Of the five Morgans that I submitted this morning, this one, IMO, had the cleanest fields and cheeks. I honestly thought at least a MS65. I had 2 other (not as nice CC Morgans) that got a 64+ and a 65. I was just unsure if the toning was natural or artificial. Here it is. Not ugly at all to me.

nice coin & toning; it’s been my experience & view both PCGS & NGC are more forgiving & generous on CC Morgans.

Quite a few people feel as you do about the leniency for CC Morgan’s. But that has nothing to do with the coin in this thread as it’s an S -mint.

i was just following up with the op’s comments re: CC Morgan.

I see. It can be helpful and less confusing to use the “Quote” function at the bottom of the post to which you’re replying.

I get it if you don’t like some or all of my posts especially when I mention luster on coins I post. But please do not insult me by questioning me about the content of my posts. This is the second time you’ve done that.

MFeld

@mikee999 said:

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@cheezbean said:
First of all, I never claimed it to be flawless. I said almost flawless. Of the five Morgans that I submitted this morning, this one, IMO, had the cleanest fields and cheeks. I honestly thought at least a MS65. I had 2 other (not as nice CC Morgans) that got a 64+ and a 65. I was just unsure if the toning was natural or artificial. Here it is. Not ugly at all to me.

nice coin & toning; it’s been my experience & view both PCGS & NGC are more forgiving & generous on CC Morgans.

Quite a few people feel as you do about the leniency for CC Morgan’s. But that has nothing to do with the coin in this thread as it’s an S -mint.

i was just following up with the op’s comments re: CC Morgan.

I see. It can be helpful and less confusing to use the “Quote” function at the bottom of the post to which you’re replying.

Mr Feld please scroll up and read my response again. There you will SEE I clearly quoted the op’s comment re CC Morgans prior to making my comments. Thank you.

Thank you. I saw the pictures of the 1878-S above your post and missed the CC part of the post you replied to.

MFeld

@mikee999 said:

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@MFeld said:

@mikee999 said:

@cheezbean said:
First of all, I never claimed it to be flawless. I said almost flawless. Of the five Morgans that I submitted this morning, this one, IMO, had the cleanest fields and cheeks. I honestly thought at least a MS65. I had 2 other (not as nice CC Morgans) that got a 64+ and a 65. I was just unsure if the toning was natural or artificial. Here it is. Not ugly at all to me.

nice coin & toning; it’s been my experience & view both PCGS & NGC are more forgiving & generous on CC Morgans.

Quite a few people feel as you do about the leniency for CC Morgan’s. But that has nothing to do with the coin in this thread as it’s an S -mint.

i was just following up with the op’s comments re: CC Morgan.

I see. It can be helpful and less confusing to use the “Quote” function at the bottom of the post to which you’re replying.

I get it if you don’t like some or all of my posts especially when I mention luster on coins I post. But please do not insult me by questioning me about the content of my posts. This is the second time you’ve done that.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I don’t like it when you mention lister on coins, but that’s incorrect. Please point me to any posts or mine that led you to that conclusion.