GTG: 1882 CC Morgan - Revealed

Project Numismatics

Every year, I send in 1-2 coins purchased 30 years ago when I was a YN. I just got the grade on this one yesterday and was surprised. Curious what grade folks would assign. These are PCGS pics:

Update - Coin is UNC Details - 94 Altered Surfaces

Morgan13

Nice coin.
Looks like a 64+
You said you were surprised so it may have received a higher grade. If it is good for you.

PeakRarities

This is a coin I'd like to buy as a 64+, but I can easily see it in a 65 holder with that luster.

MFeld

MS64. The obverse appears to be over-lit, so perhaps some flaws are being masked.

cameonut2011

64

Manifest_Destiny

blitzdude

64 RGDS!

Crepidodera

65

Joe_360

I guess that I'll be the low man on the totem-pole. Lots of chatter on Liberties' face, (rim dings?), some dings on the reverse plus eagles chest. Milk spots by the A. R in dollar? MS63...

GoldFinger1969

MS-66 maybe ? Certainly an MS-65.

Can't tell about DMPL or PL.

coastaljerseyguy

MS64

mattniss

Looks like a strong 64 to me.

scotty4449

I'll say 65. A little chatter on the cheek but the fields look fairly clean and the luster is good.

Dropdaflag

I'm in the 64 camp.

lcoopie

63, no more.

johnny010

65

MFeld

@GoldFinger1969 said:
MS-66 maybe ? Certainly an MS-65.

Can't tell about DMPL or PL.

There’s no “certainly” with respect to specific grades for uncirculated or Proof coins, when grading from images.

Project Numismatics

@MFeld said:
MS64. The obverse appears to be over-lit, so perhaps some flaws are being masked.

The TruViews for the entire submission are over-lit unfortunately - I’m disappointed, but that’s a topic for another thread.

That said, no one has gotten the answer, but your hypothesis is correct - there is a hidden issue here somewhere. Coin received UNC Details 94 - Altered Surfaces. Whatever led to that grade, I missed it prior to submission. Will followup next week with more pics when the coin is delivered. Hopefully I can find the issue!

AUandAG

First thought was 64+

bob
vegas baby!

jesbroken

Wow, I didn't post my 63 grade as I'm not very educated on Morgan's, but would never have noticed a details 94 grade.
Jim

Morgan13

It is fun to GTG no doubt about it. However, this is a prime example of how difficult it can be to accurately grade a coin from images.
With that said what a surprise!

metalmeister

Hmmm, sorry 'bout that. Coin looks fine. Maybe some rim damage dropped it back to details grade?

asheland

@Manifest_Destiny said:

Love that!
My guess was also 64, but now that he mentions altered surfaces, I can see halos around the stars, but it looks very mild. 64 otherwise I’d say.

PeakRarities

@Project Numismatics said:

@MFeld said:
MS64. The obverse appears to be over-lit, so perhaps some flaws are being masked.

The TruViews for the entire submission are over-lit unfortunately - I’m disappointed, but that’s a topic for another thread.

Coincidentally, there happens to be an active thread for just that. If I were you, I’d voice your displeasure there. Now is the time to pile on while we have some momentum going, that is until PCGS wants to acknowledge the issue.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1099740/pcgs-trueviews-what-the-heck-is-going-on/p1

logger7

I'd agree with the most seasoned professionals here, and say very likely MS64.

I bought a GSA same date and mm this week from a local guy and it's close to this one.

Project Numismatics

I have it back now and took some fresh photos. The only explanation I can see is a potential issue around the stars as @asheland mentioned. Does anyone have any thoughts on altered surfaces?

coastaljerseyguy

If it was over dipped/cleaned causing those halos wouldn't it get the 92 and not 94 designation? I thought 94 was something added to the surface of coin to enhance its appeal. Was it puttied?

Walkerguy21D

I’d like to get the experts opinions.

From all the images, to me it looks like a standard issue CC dollar from the Treasury releases from the early ‘70’s.