Guess the Grade, 1884-CC Morgan (Grade posted)

Luxor

johnhenry9009

I'd say 67 due to the marks above "In god we trust"

PeakRarities

Really nice coin, ms67.

hummingbird_coins

66+

Rollerman

67 is the way I see it.

john_nyc1

67

relicsncoins

Very clean looking. I'll go 67+

pursuitofliberty

That is a very clean looking Morgan. I have to agree, it looks Superb, so 67 would seem appropriate.

TomB

Wow! That is really, really satiny and clean. Nice coin!

Somewhere, ricko definitely approves.

gumby1234

67+

coinbuf

MS66

HighRelief

I see it as a very nice MS66.

markelman1125

MS66

Moparmonster

7

BigAl

Nice! 67+

jfriedm56

Very clean and attractive. 67+.

jesbroken

RKO67+
Jim

morgansforever

Tough to pick apart a runway model, I'll say 67 all day long even on Sunday, jmo.

Morgan13

Looks clean as a whistle.
My guess would be MS67

Soldi

66+

fathom

Could be a 67+ but I don't trust the sharpness of the photo, maybe because of the repost.

AUandAG

66+. Beautiful dollar!

67 in NGC GSA holder (if it was).
bob

MFeld

I got to MS67 quickly and easily (and anything less than that would surprise me), so my guess is that the coin was graded 67+.

Walkerfan

66

Sven27

67

Eldorado9

No way that is a 66. I'll go 67+

Luxor

Thank you for all the guesses. PCGS thought this one was an MS66

MFeld

@Luxor said:
Thank you for all the guesses. PCGS thought this one was an MS66

How does the coin compare in hand, vs. the images?

PeakRarities

Just like Mark, I'm curious to know how the luster looks in hand. Only going by the provided photos, looks like a possible crack out candidate, but without seeing the coin I couldn't be certain.

"If the grade does not fit, you must re-submit!"

coinbuf

@DeplorableDan said:
Just like Mark, I'm curious to know how the luster looks in hand. Only going by the provided photos, looks like a possible crack out candidate, but without seeing the coin I couldn't be certain.

"If the grade does not fit, you must re-submit!"

The cheek and the hair curls under the ear are too softly struck for anything over MS66 (imo). That of course doesn't mean that the coin might someday be in a higher graded tomb.

PeakRarities

@coinbuf said:

@DeplorableDan said:
Just like Mark, I'm curious to know how the luster looks in hand. Only going by the provided photos, looks like a possible crack out candidate, but without seeing the coin I couldn't be certain.

"If the grade does not fit, you must re-submit!"

The cheek and the hair curls under the ear are too softly struck for anything over MS66 (imo). That of course doesn't mean that the coin might someday be in a higher graded tomb.

I understand your position, but looking at CoinFacts I don’t know if PCGS would be as strict. Here’s a PCGS 67 that has the same, if not worse, weakness in the hair curls. It’s also got far more hits.

All that being said, this is a CC, not an 81-s. The coin will likely need to be tried several times to get the 67 grade. I would say PCGS 67 would be far from a “tomb”, however. From the provided photos. I could see that coin as a 67+.

coinbuf

@DeplorableDan said:

@coinbuf said:

@DeplorableDan said:
Just like Mark, I'm curious to know how the luster looks in hand. Only going by the provided photos, looks like a possible crack out candidate, but without seeing the coin I couldn't be certain.

"If the grade does not fit, you must re-submit!"

The cheek and the hair curls under the ear are too softly struck for anything over MS66 (imo). That of course doesn't mean that the coin might someday be in a higher graded tomb.

I understand your position, but looking at CoinFacts I don’t know if PCGS would be as strict. Here’s a PCGS 67 that has the same, if not worse, weakness in the hair curls. It’s also got far more hits.

All that being said, this is a CC, not an 81-s. The coin will likely need to be tried several times to get the 67 grade. I would say PCGS 67 would be far from a “tomb”, however. From the provided photos. I could see that coin as a 67+.

Finding a clearly overgraded example does not prove that the op coin is undergraded.

MFeld

@coinbuf said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@coinbuf said:

@DeplorableDan said:
Just like Mark, I'm curious to know how the luster looks in hand. Only going by the provided photos, looks like a possible crack out candidate, but without seeing the coin I couldn't be certain.

"If the grade does not fit, you must re-submit!"

The cheek and the hair curls under the ear are too softly struck for anything over MS66 (imo). That of course doesn't mean that the coin might someday be in a higher graded tomb.

I understand your position, but looking at CoinFacts I don’t know if PCGS would be as strict. Here’s a PCGS 67 that has the same, if not worse, weakness in the hair curls. It’s also got far more hits.

All that being said, this is a CC, not an 81-s. The coin will likely need to be tried several times to get the 67 grade. I would say PCGS 67 would be far from a “tomb”, however. From the provided photos. I could see that coin as a 67+.

Finding a clearly overgraded example does not prove that the op coin is undergraded.

True, it doesn’t. But strike and Liberty’s cheek, not withstanding, the MS66 in this thread still looked like a 67 or 67+ to many of us.

Morgan13

Send it to CAC, maybe you will get a gold sticker!

coinbuf

@MFeld said:
True, it doesn’t. But strike and Liberty’s cheek, not withstanding, the MS66 in this thread still looked like a 67 or 67+ to many of us.

And it looks like an MS66 or 66+ to many of us (seven by my count) that replied as well. GTG threads are fun and can be educational to a point, but what they really show is just how subjective grading done by humans really is. Especially when grading from photos.

Market grading has taken firm hold on many (perhaps most in this forum) with attention to luster being the overriding attribute, notice how many of the MS67 guesses remarked about luster. It would appear to have been so much on the mind of many that they forgot to look at the coin, the surfaces, the quality of the strike, these all have to be accounted for when grading a coin.

Actually I'm quite surprised that PCGS gave this a 66, I fully expected it to receive MS67 from PCGS. For once the graders actually looked at the whole coin and not just the luster. As I said to Dan, I fully expect that somewhere down the road that will be changed once the right person submits the coin.

JWP

MS66

Jacques_Loungecoque

@TomB said:
Wow! That is really, really satiny and clean. Nice coin!

Somewhere, ricko definitely approves.

In this case I like to imagine
somewhere = frosty blast white heaven world, where no toning is allowed.

abbyme24

Yes as a relatively new person to the scene, learning about luster and taking into account its affect on grade has been a big part of the process for me.

This was confusing to me at first because all of the material I read on grading mentioned luster as being a component but not a major force behind determining a grade. But in reality it’s obvious that market grading has put an intense focus on luster. I see so many gem+ coins (Morgans particularly) that if you were to go by ANA standards or Bowers’ reference book would only be a 63-64 at best. Strike in particular seems to have virtually no effect on holding back a coin from gem or higher.

rodepetdinosaur

@coinbuf said:

Actually I'm quite surprised that PCGS gave this a 66, I fully expected it to receive MS67 from PCGS. For once the graders actually looked at the whole coin and not just the luster. As I said to Dan, I fully expect that somewhere down the road that will be changed once the right person submits the coin.

Every time I see "the right person submits the coin" I wonder if there is some credence to the "preferential grading"
rumors. I've heard this from several dealers over the years, but think it could be sour grapes from people not getting
the grades they expect. Incidentally, I graded this coin MS66 when I first viewed this post.

abbyme24

@rodepetdinosaur said:

@coinbuf said:

Actually I'm quite surprised that PCGS gave this a 66, I fully expected it to receive MS67 from PCGS. For once the graders actually looked at the whole coin and not just the luster. As I said to Dan, I fully expect that somewhere down the road that will be changed once the right person submits the coin.

Every time I see "the right person submits the coin" I wonder if there is some credence to the "preferential grading"
rumors. I've heard this from several dealers over the years, but think it could be sour grapes from people not getting
the grades they expect. Incidentally, I graded this coin MS66 when I first viewed this post.

An ex-NGC employee recently alleged on Reddit that they would sometimes look at who had submitted coins even though they weren’t supposed to. Whether they recognize it or not, that can still introduce bias.

Elcontador

Reverse of top pic looks one full stop overexposed, obverse just a little bit under that. An exceptionally clean 84 CC. I had a handful of 83 CCs and 84 CCs, kept the nicest 84 CC. Mine's either a 6 or 6 + with a CAC sticker. It's reverse toning helped. These coins come baggy, and PCGS in the past has given them between a 1/2 and 3/4 grade bump because of it. I don't know if this has recently changed. Reverse of the coin typically looks much cleaner than the obverse.

I have never seen an 83 CC or 84 CC with a cheek and obverse as clean as this one. I'd need to see the coin in hand, because in situations like these, a coin's eye appeal will differentiate between a 6 and 7.

I have learned to pay for a nice coin for the grade rather than stretch for a liner coin. The problem with a liner coin is that you have to resubmit it a number of times. Sometimes you get the desired grade. More often, you don't. Add the additional grading fees paid and cost of the liner coin, plus the stress of sending it in and waiting. My experience is occasionally it's worth it, but usually not.

Elcontador

@abbyme24 said:

@rodepetdinosaur said:

@coinbuf said:

An ex-NGC employee recently alleged on Reddit that they would sometimes look at who had submitted coins even though they weren’t supposed to. Whether they recognize it or not, that can still introduce bias.

If true, I don't know whether or not that would help or hurt me, as all of my submissions are sent through Heritage.

abbyme24

@Elcontador said:
Reverse of top pic looks one full stop overexposed, obverse just a little bit under that. An exceptionally clean 84 CC. I had a handful of 83 CCs and 84 CCs, kept the nicest 84 CC. Mine's either a 6 or 6 + with a CAC sticker. It's reverse toning helped. These coins come baggy, and PCGS in the past has given them between a 1/2 and 3/4 grade bump because of it. I don't know if this has recently changed. Reverse of the coin typically looks much cleaner than the obverse.

I have never seen an 83 CC or 84 CC with a cheek and obverse as clean as this one. I'd need to see the coin in hand, because in situations like these, a coin's eye appeal will differentiate between a 6 and 7.

I have learned to pay for a nice coin for the grade rather than stretch for a liner coin. The problem with a liner coin is that you have to resubmit it a number of times. Sometimes you get the desired grade. More often, you don't. Add the additional grading fees paid and cost of the liner coin, plus the stress of sending it in and waiting. My experience is occasionally it's worth it, but usually not.

When you do multiple submissions like that shooting for a higher grade do you do it as reconsideration or crack and send it raw?

PeakRarities

@Elcontador said:

@abbyme24 said:

@rodepetdinosaur said:

@coinbuf said:

An ex-NGC employee recently alleged on Reddit that they would sometimes look at who had submitted coins even though they weren’t supposed to. Whether they recognize it or not, that can still introduce bias.

If true, I don't know whether or not that would help or hurt me, as all of my submissions are sent through Heritage.

That would help, if anything.

PeakRarities

@abbyme24 said:

@Elcontador said:
Reverse of top pic looks one full stop overexposed, obverse just a little bit under that. An exceptionally clean 84 CC. I had a handful of 83 CCs and 84 CCs, kept the nicest 84 CC. Mine's either a 6 or 6 + with a CAC sticker. It's reverse toning helped. These coins come baggy, and PCGS in the past has given them between a 1/2 and 3/4 grade bump because of it. I don't know if this has recently changed. Reverse of the coin typically looks much cleaner than the obverse.

I have never seen an 83 CC or 84 CC with a cheek and obverse as clean as this one. I'd need to see the coin in hand, because in situations like these, a coin's eye appeal will differentiate between a 6 and 7.

I have learned to pay for a nice coin for the grade rather than stretch for a liner coin. The problem with a liner coin is that you have to resubmit it a number of times. Sometimes you get the desired grade. More often, you don't. Add the additional grading fees paid and cost of the liner coin, plus the stress of sending it in and waiting. My experience is occasionally it's worth it, but usually not.

When you do multiple submissions like that shooting for a higher grade do you do it as reconsideration or crack and send it raw?

I haven't done well with reconsideration the past couple years. When you really believe in a coin, and you're not worried about the possibility of a downgrade, raw submissions are the way to go. If you had a 66+ and you were shooting for 67, regrade might be a better option so you at least retain the + if it doesn't make the cut.

With reconsideration, they have to grade the coin while its encased in plastic, and as you know that could hinder an upgrade if the graders are playing it safe.

abbyme24

@DeplorableDan said:

@abbyme24 said:

@Elcontador said:
Reverse of top pic looks one full stop overexposed, obverse just a little bit under that. An exceptionally clean 84 CC. I had a handful of 83 CCs and 84 CCs, kept the nicest 84 CC. Mine's either a 6 or 6 + with a CAC sticker. It's reverse toning helped. These coins come baggy, and PCGS in the past has given them between a 1/2 and 3/4 grade bump because of it. I don't know if this has recently changed. Reverse of the coin typically looks much cleaner than the obverse.

I have never seen an 83 CC or 84 CC with a cheek and obverse as clean as this one. I'd need to see the coin in hand, because in situations like these, a coin's eye appeal will differentiate between a 6 and 7.

I have learned to pay for a nice coin for the grade rather than stretch for a liner coin. The problem with a liner coin is that you have to resubmit it a number of times. Sometimes you get the desired grade. More often, you don't. Add the additional grading fees paid and cost of the liner coin, plus the stress of sending it in and waiting. My experience is occasionally it's worth it, but usually not.

When you do multiple submissions like that shooting for a higher grade do you do it as reconsideration or crack and send it raw?

I haven't done well with reconsideration the past couple years. When you really believe in a coin, and you're not worried about the possibility of a downgrade, raw submissions are the way to go. If you had a 66+ and you were shooting for 67, regrade might be a better option so you at least retain the + if it doesn't make the cut.

With reconsideration, they have to grade the coin while its encased in plastic, and as you know that could hinder an upgrade if the graders are playing it safe.

That makes sense - appreciate the insight.

CRHer700

That was a fast reveal, I didn't see it until now.

lermish

@abbyme24 said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@abbyme24 said:

@Elcontador said:
Reverse of top pic looks one full stop overexposed, obverse just a little bit under that. An exceptionally clean 84 CC. I had a handful of 83 CCs and 84 CCs, kept the nicest 84 CC. Mine's either a 6 or 6 + with a CAC sticker. It's reverse toning helped. These coins come baggy, and PCGS in the past has given them between a 1/2 and 3/4 grade bump because of it. I don't know if this has recently changed. Reverse of the coin typically looks much cleaner than the obverse.

I have never seen an 83 CC or 84 CC with a cheek and obverse as clean as this one. I'd need to see the coin in hand, because in situations like these, a coin's eye appeal will differentiate between a 6 and 7.

I have learned to pay for a nice coin for the grade rather than stretch for a liner coin. The problem with a liner coin is that you have to resubmit it a number of times. Sometimes you get the desired grade. More often, you don't. Add the additional grading fees paid and cost of the liner coin, plus the stress of sending it in and waiting. My experience is occasionally it's worth it, but usually not.

When you do multiple submissions like that shooting for a higher grade do you do it as reconsideration or crack and send it raw?

I haven't done well with reconsideration the past couple years. When you really believe in a coin, and you're not worried about the possibility of a downgrade, raw submissions are the way to go. If you had a 66+ and you were shooting for 67, regrade might be a better option so you at least retain the + if it doesn't make the cut.

With reconsideration, they have to grade the coin while its encased in plastic, and as you know that could hinder an upgrade if the graders are playing it safe.

That makes sense - appreciate the insight.

If you are a good grader as many here are (not me, I'm mediocre at best) but have some humility and introspection there is not a ton of downside to cracking out.

People get in trouble when they have too much ego and can't fathom being wrong or not enough skill to know that they are wrong. Also some periodic physical mishandling issues and bad luck.

But for the coin above...it's never coming back details and seems likely to be near the bottom of it's grade range. Cracking it out has basically no negatives but does save money in fees and gets a fresh set of eyes on the coin, not the holder.

Catbert

I may be in the minority, but I don't like to chase grades and pluses and would be very happy to own a coin that appears undergraded and is also viewed as such by others.

Luxor

To answer a couple inquiries, the coin in hand looks even better than the PCGS pics IMO, and this coin compares favorably with 2 other common date CC's I have in 66+.

skier07

@Catbert said:
I may be in the minority, but I don't like to chase grades and pluses and would be very happy to own a coin that appears undergraded and is also viewed as such by others.

That makes a lot of sense but the price difference between a 66 and 67 is huge and if the coin is undergraded you’re leaving lots of money on the table when you sell it.