What's keeping this 67+ Morgan from MS68?

ProofCollection

I was looking at this Morgan which is graded PCGS MS67+ and then looking at the Coinfacts images for the 68's and I was wondering what is keeping this dollar from 68? Is it the spots? I wonder if the spots can be removed with restoration? I'm interested to see what the forum has to say about this one. I do not own it. Edited to add: They don't look like carbon spots, but crud that can be removed possibly. Anyone agree?

AUandAG

sure is a nice example, at 67+.

bob

DocBenjamin

Obv spots would keep that otherwise very nice Dollar out of my collection.

cladking

The reverse is a little rough.

PeakRarities

Obv spots and the reverse fields.

RobertScotLover

A lot of negative characteristics

ProofCollection

@RobertScotLover said:
A lot of negative characteristics

Maybe we could all learn something if you'd provide more details.

braddick

I'd ask, how did this Morgan receive a plus grade? What attributes cause it to not only be an MS67, but also receive a +?

FlyingAl

A grader's opinion holds it back.

RobertScotLover

@PeakRarities said:
Obv spots and the reverse fields.

See above, they kill it for me, nothing more to add

ProofCollection

@braddick said:
I'd ask, how did this Morgan receive a plus grade? What attributes cause it to not only be an MS67, but also receive a +?

That's certainly a valid question to ask. My expertise is more in the common grades MS60-65, I did neglect to mention that is has a CAC sticker so JA affirms that it is at least MS67. I would say that the strike is decent, the luster appears to be full, and the surface preservation on the obverse is exceptional with only a few small nicks that do not readily grab your attention. On the reverse the field below the eagle's wing on the right has some light chatter and the frost is lightly disturbed on the eagle's breast with a few tiny marks around the "we trust." When I compare to the 68's in Coin Facts, the coin is almost comparable to 2 of them (total pop 5 with 68 being top). This coin seems to be on par with or better than the other 67+'s, and so I got to wondering what I'm not seeing, or if this is so borderline that it could go 68, or if it's something like the spots which kind of look like grime rather than carbon or part of this surface. Or is it one too many nicks on the obv like the ones on the chin, lip, and brow. I'm really interested to see how others view the coin.

coinbuf

IMO the obv spots are the holdup, those look to be in the coin and would not dip off.

Cougar1978

It’s a 68 lol, your kidding.

The luster in the face has a weak area. 2 dark spots on left obverse between E & P even more negative, frankly question if it’s even 67. Low end 67 at best. A plus??? Your kidding.

Definitely not something pay full 67 money for. Would discount offer considerably lol.

And for sure Definitely not a 68. Beep / thumbs down.

Would not even fool with restoration lol. Just blow it out in auction, hope they bid it up, take any loss like a real player and move on to the next deal. The losers will always try argue with some kind of know it all BS.

ProofCollection

@coinbuf said:
IMO the obv spots are the holdup, those look to be in the coin and would not dip off.

Hard to say if it would come off, but looks like some kind of splatter.

Cougar1978

Sure does. Not one to gamble and buy it.

Yes would have to discount offer way down for that unknown. But frankly pass. One might make it worse in trying remove splatter. Did somebody spit on it?

Really awful spots - blow out, just take the loss to sch C. Life goes on.

ChrisH821

Only one way to find out

lermish

@Cougar1978 said:
It’s a 68 lol, your kidding.

The luster in the face has a weak area. 2 dark spots on left obverse between E & P even more negative, frankly question if it’s even 67. Low end 67 at best. A plus??? Your kidding.

Definitely not something pay full 67 money for. Would discount offer considerably lol.

And for sure Definitely not a 68. Beep / thumbs down.

Would not even fool with restoration lol. Just blow it out in auction, hope they bid it up, take any loss like a real player and move on to the next deal. The losers will always try argue with some kind of know it all BS.

That sounds like loser know-it-all BS to me.
Projecting a little?

Rollerman

I had to chuckle as I read all the nit picking about this coin, but many who commented missed that the OP said it wasn't his coin. I hope no one gets their nose out of joint, I miss stuff too as a glance through these posts.

coinbuf

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:
IMO the obv spots are the holdup, those look to be in the coin and would not dip off.

Hard to say if it would come off, but looks like some kind of splatter.

I'm just not seeing it as something sitting on the surface like splatter, especially that one deep in the hair curl. But there is only so much a photo can convey.

RobertScotLover

I think the title of this thread could have also been: Why did this Morgan $1 receive a ms67+ as opposed to a 66. I don't know many who would have paid 67+ money with the negative attributes that are on the obv as well as the rev

PeakRarities

Yea I’ll be honest, I do see the coin as a technical 7 but I’d be grateful that you got a + taking into consideration the flaws mentioned. I don’t think they’re distracting enough to knock the coin back to 6, but I’m maxed out at 7 on this one.

MFeld

@Rollerman said:
I had to chuckle as I read all the nit picking about this coin, but many who commented missed that the OP said it wasn't his coin. I hope no one gets their nose out of joint, I miss stuff too as a glance through these posts.

I saw only one post that looked to have missed that the OP said it wasn’t his coin. And it was written by @Cougar78, who has a long history of either not reading or not comprehending posts to which he replies. He often suggests that the person posting a coin sell it, even when the OP states thst he doesn’t own it.

lablover

@ProofCollection said:
I was looking at this Morgan which is graded PCGS MS67+ and then looking at the Coinfacts images for the 68's and I was wondering what is keeping this dollar from 68? Is it the spots? I wonder if the spots can be removed with restoration? I'm interested to see what the forum has to say about this one. I do not own it. Edited to add: They don't look like carbon spots, but crud that can be removed possibly. Anyone agree?

A wise former grader ( @MFeld ) once told me to consider the coin I'm comparing mine with might just be over graded.

Morgan13

I have seen 68's that this coin looks better than.
It's a point and a half from 70 so deductions were made for the flaws.
I like it as a 67+ compared to what I have seen.
Might be an unpopular comment but I believe it's true.

BAJJERFAN

@Morgan13 said:
I have seen 68's that this coin looks better than.
It's a point and a half from 70 so deductions were made for the flaws.
I like it as a 67+ compared to what I have seen.
Might be an unpopular comment but I believe it's true.

2 [and a half] points from 70.

BillJones

Two "carbon spots" below "P" in "PLURIBUS" and shiny spots on the Eagle's breast feathers.

When you get to this grade level on a Morgan Dollar, EVERYTHING matters.

M4Madness

@ProofCollection said:
I did neglect to mention that is has a CAC sticker so JA affirms that it is at least MS67.

I wonder how many readers missed this tidbit?

Catbert

@MFeld said:

@Rollerman said:
I had to chuckle as I read all the nit picking about this coin, but many who commented missed that the OP said it wasn't his coin. I hope no one gets their nose out of joint, I miss stuff too as a glance through these posts.

I saw only one post that looked to have missed that the OP said it wasn’t his coin. And it was written by @Cougar78, who has a long history of either not reading or not comprehending posts to which he replies. He often suggests that the person posting a coin sell it, even when the OP states thst he doesn’t own it.

Reading comprehension and awareness are not his strengths. I'd say he's the tire kicker of the forum!

AngryTurtle

In the stratospheric grades luster gains more and more importance the higher you go, in my experience. Cant really tell from the picture, the OP describes luster as "full", that may not be good enough.

jughead1893

agree with Turtle. Incredible luster carries 67's to 68

LeeBone

Hard to say in a grade this high by pictures only.
If I was a buyer on a coin of this nature it would be in hand only.

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@Rollerman said:
I had to chuckle as I read all the nit picking about this coin, but many who commented missed that the OP said it wasn't his coin. I hope no one gets their nose out of joint, I miss stuff too as a glance through these posts.

I saw only one post that looked to have missed that the OP said it wasn’t his coin. And it was written by @Cougar78, who has a long history of either not reading or not comprehending posts to which he replies. He often suggests that the person posting a coin sell it, even when the OP states thst he doesn’t own it.

I share the same opinions and rarely find his contributions to be worth reading.

@AngryTurtle said:
In the stratospheric grades luster gains more and more importance the higher you go, in my experience. Cant really tell from the picture, the OP describes luster as "full", that may not be good enough.

I haven't seen the coin in person, that was my best assessment from the photos and TV. It could be exceptional but I don't know. Good point though, I didn't realize that but it makes sense.

PeakRarities

I don’t think we should overthink this one, gentlemen. I don’t care if the coin emits its own light, the spots and the business in the reverse fields kill the coin as an 8.

To be a 68 as white coin it needs to be basically perfect with no notable distractions in addition to having incredible luster and eye appeal.

Some post strike contact can be forgiven IF the coin has gorgeous color, but what goes through a grader’s mind is “would I be happy with this coin if I paid 68 money”… and the spots make that decision clear for me.

MFeld

@PeakRarities said:
I don’t think we should overthink this one, gentlemen. I don’t care if the coin emits its own light, the spots and the business in the reverse fields kill the coin as an 8.

To be a 68 as white coin it needs to be basically perfect with no notable distractions in addition to having incredible luster and eye appeal.

Some post strike contact can be forgiven IF the coin has gorgeous color, but what goes through a grader’s mind is “would I be happy with this coin if I paid 68 money”… and the spots make that decision clear for me.

I think the spots, alone, should preclude a 68.

As for not overthinking - if we, as a forum, stopped doing that, we’d have much shorter and far fewer threads.😉

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@PeakRarities said:
I don’t think we should overthink this one, gentlemen. I don’t care if the coin emits its own light, the spots and the business in the reverse fields kill the coin as an 8.

To be a 68 as white coin it needs to be basically perfect with no notable distractions in addition to having incredible luster and eye appeal.

Some post strike contact can be forgiven IF the coin has gorgeous color, but what goes through a grader’s mind is “would I be happy with this coin if I paid 68 money”… and the spots make that decision clear for me.

I think the spots, alone, should preclude a 68.

As for not overthinking - if we, as a forum, stopped doing that, we’d have much shorter and far fewer threads.😉

So that's really what I was asking. Without the spots, is this 68-eligible? Dan doesn't like the reverse fields but I'm not sure I agree they are that problematic or prohibitive of a 68 from comparables I've seen. No one else has really mentioned the reverse fields.

This was a fun and educational thread because these are the kinds of considerations and questions that a collector encounters. Clearly, buying this coin is problematic because even with a CAC sticker the spots will turn off a lot of buyer and make it a hard sell. OTOH, if you can stand the spots, one should be able to buy a coin like this at a discount. IMO there's no such thing as an undesirable coin, they're just coins that are priced too high.

cameonut2011

Carbon spots are not removable to my knowledge. In case it wasn’t a carbon spot, I’d send it into the conservation tier and hope for the best. It would be guaranteed to keep its grade and the cert number would stay the same so it would definitely resticker.

PeakRarities

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@PeakRarities said:
I don’t think we should overthink this one, gentlemen. I don’t care if the coin emits its own light, the spots and the business in the reverse fields kill the coin as an 8.

To be a 68 as white coin it needs to be basically perfect with no notable distractions in addition to having incredible luster and eye appeal.

Some post strike contact can be forgiven IF the coin has gorgeous color, but what goes through a grader’s mind is “would I be happy with this coin if I paid 68 money”… and the spots make that decision clear for me.

I think the spots, alone, should preclude a 68.

As for not overthinking - if we, as a forum, stopped doing that, we’d have much shorter and far fewer threads.😉

So that's really what I was asking. Without the spots, is this 68-eligible? Dan doesn't like the reverse fields but I'm not sure I agree they are that problematic or prohibitive of a 68 from comparables I've seen. No one else has really mentioned the reverse fields.

This was a fun and educational thread because these are the kinds of considerations and questions that a collector encounters. Clearly, buying this coin is problematic because even with a CAC sticker the spots will turn off a lot of buyer and make it a hard sell. OTOH, if you can stand the spots, one should be able to buy a coin like this at a discount. IMO there's no such thing as an undesirable coin, they're just coins that are priced too high.

I was emphasizing the spots much more than the rev fields, I could get past the rev fields but the spots are unforgivable. Tiny little copper spots on gold? No problem. Thick, opaque carbon spots? No no no.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@PeakRarities said:
I don’t think we should overthink this one, gentlemen. I don’t care if the coin emits its own light, the spots and the business in the reverse fields kill the coin as an 8.

To be a 68 as white coin it needs to be basically perfect with no notable distractions in addition to having incredible luster and eye appeal.

Some post strike contact can be forgiven IF the coin has gorgeous color, but what goes through a grader’s mind is “would I be happy with this coin if I paid 68 money”… and the spots make that decision clear for me.

I think the spots, alone, should preclude a 68.

As for not overthinking - if we, as a forum, stopped doing that, we’d have much shorter and far fewer threads.😉

So that's really what I was asking. Without the spots, is this 68-eligible? Dan doesn't like the reverse fields but I'm not sure I agree they are that problematic or prohibitive of a 68 from comparables I've seen. No one else has really mentioned the reverse fields.

This was a fun and educational thread because these are the kinds of considerations and questions that a collector encounters. Clearly, buying this coin is problematic because even with a CAC sticker the spots will turn off a lot of buyer and make it a hard sell. OTOH, if you can stand the spots, one should be able to buy a coin like this at a discount. IMO there's no such thing as an undesirable coin, they're just coins that are priced too high.

In addition to the spots (and the reverse marks, which don’t bother me nearly as much) the coin’s luster doesn’t look too impressive. Additionally, there appears to be a discolored area on the obverse from beneath the right side of Liberty’s eye to roughly halfway down her cheek.
So even without the spots, I wouldn’t be thinking about a 68.

ProofCollection

@cameonut2011 said:
Carbon spots are not removable to my knowledge. In case it wasn’t a carbon spot, I’d send it into the conservation tier and hope for the best. It would be guaranteed to keep its grade and the cert number would stay the same so it would definitely resticker.

I've owned a few coins with carbon spots and they are all dark black. These are definitely brown. In my experience carbon spots are black, so that's why I question if they are treatable. Maybe I just haven't encountered a brown carbon spot yet?

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@PeakRarities said:
I don’t think we should overthink this one, gentlemen. I don’t care if the coin emits its own light, the spots and the business in the reverse fields kill the coin as an 8.

To be a 68 as white coin it needs to be basically perfect with no notable distractions in addition to having incredible luster and eye appeal.

Some post strike contact can be forgiven IF the coin has gorgeous color, but what goes through a grader’s mind is “would I be happy with this coin if I paid 68 money”… and the spots make that decision clear for me.

I think the spots, alone, should preclude a 68.

As for not overthinking - if we, as a forum, stopped doing that, we’d have much shorter and far fewer threads.😉

So that's really what I was asking. Without the spots, is this 68-eligible? Dan doesn't like the reverse fields but I'm not sure I agree they are that problematic or prohibitive of a 68 from comparables I've seen. No one else has really mentioned the reverse fields.

This was a fun and educational thread because these are the kinds of considerations and questions that a collector encounters. Clearly, buying this coin is problematic because even with a CAC sticker the spots will turn off a lot of buyer and make it a hard sell. OTOH, if you can stand the spots, one should be able to buy a coin like this at a discount. IMO there's no such thing as an undesirable coin, they're just coins that are priced too high.

In addition to the spots (and the reverse marks, which don’t bother me nearly as much) the coin’s luster doesn’t look too impressive. Additionally, there appears to be a discolored area on the obverse from beneath the right side of Liberty’s eye to roughly halfway down her cheek.
So even without the spots, I wouldn’t be thinking about a 68.

Ah, thank you. These are the kinds of insights I'm looking for. I can definitely see that discoloration streak across the face being a factor.

RobertScotLover

If it didn't have these multiple problems then a 67 would be imaginable although blast white is dipped albeit properly is what it is imo and we all know it has become market acceptable throughout the hobby. I just cannot imagine how 140 year old silver being blast white anymore than Madonna without a facelift these days....she was once hot

jmlanzaf

@MFeld said:

@Rollerman said:
I had to chuckle as I read all the nit picking about this coin, but many who commented missed that the OP said it wasn't his coin. I hope no one gets their nose out of joint, I miss stuff too as a glance through these posts.

I saw only one post that looked to have missed that the OP said it wasn’t his coin. And it was written by @Cougar78, who has a long history of either not reading or not comprehending posts to which he replies. He often suggests that the person posting a coin sell it, even when the OP states thst he doesn’t own it.

And "take the loss on schedule C" when he didn't know what anyone might have paid for it. Lol

Typekat

@RobertScotLover

In 1955, the US Treasury had over 300 million Morgan and Peace dollars in storage, most of which were bright white uncirculated coins in sealed bags, just as they left the Philadelphia, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Carson City Mints.

Ask any of the oldtimers: for 95% of these coins, no ‘dip’ was needed.

MFeld

@RobertScotLover said:
If it didn't have these multiple problems then a 67 would be imaginable although blast white is dipped albeit properly is what it is imo and we all know it has become market acceptable throughout the hobby. I just cannot imagine how 140 year old silver being blast white anymore than Madonna without a facelift these days....she was once hot

As @Typekat pointed out, “blast white” isn’t necessarily dipped, particularly in the case of Morgan dollars that were stored in sealed bags.

lkenefic

FWIW... I don't know for certain if the spots would come off and I'm not a gambling man... at least on this coin. The upside is a lot... 68 is a mid 5-figure coin but if it gets knocked down a grade, you're out a few thousand. Not my end of the pool!!

ProofCollection

@lkenefic said:
FWIW... I don't know for certain if the spots would come off and I'm not a gambling man... at least on this coin. The upside is a lot... 68 is a mid 5-figure coin but if it gets knocked down a grade, you're out a few thousand. Not my end of the pool!!

Yep. But if PCGS restores it there's no risk of a downgrade.

Pizzaman

An engraver uses detail to control our eye movement through the coin, which is the primary determinant on how we feel about the coin. When there are spots on a coin, that disturbs our eye movement, and market grading equals eye appeal equals how we feel about the coin equals how a grader grades the coin. Technically, this coin is a 68, every bit of it. Those spots are the only plausible reason it isn't a market 68. They're that much an eye-magnet interrupting our eye movement and how we feel about the coin. Get rid of them in a market acceptable way, likely a spot dip of some kind, it's a market 68. And there you go, you got it.

MFeld

@Pizzaman said:
An engraver uses detail to control our eye movement through the coin, which is the primary determinant on how we feel about the coin. When there are spots on a coin, that disturbs our eye movement, and market grading equals eye appeal equals how we feel about the coin equals how a grader grades the coin. Technically, this coin is a 68, every bit of it. Those spots are the only plausible reason it isn't a market 68. They're that much an eye-magnet interrupting our eye movement and how we feel about the coin. Get rid of them in a market acceptable way, likely a spot dip of some kind, it's a market 68. And there you go, you got it.

The spots aren’t the only plausible reason the coin didn’t grade 68. Among other possibilities are marks on each side and a sizable area of discoloration on Liberty’s face.

Pizzaman

@MFeld said:

@Pizzaman said:
An engraver uses detail to control our eye movement through the coin, which is the primary determinant on how we feel about the coin. When there are spots on a coin, that disturbs our eye movement, and market grading equals eye appeal equals how we feel about the coin equals how a grader grades the coin. Technically, this coin is a 68, every bit of it. Those spots are the only plausible reason it isn't a market 68. They're that much an eye-magnet interrupting our eye movement and how we feel about the coin. Get rid of them in a market acceptable way, likely a spot dip of some kind, it's a market 68. And there you go, you got it.

The spots aren’t the only plausible reason the coin didn’t grade 68. Among other possibilities are marks on each side and a sizable area of discoloration on Liberty’s face.

I disagree the marks are consequential on this "+" coin. The cheek, I'll go there, it could stand some touch up. Think it'd 68 without it, though. Just my opinion.

BUFFNIXX

correctly graded as it stands!

tcollects

all I see are those spots, it's not a coin for everyone, so imho I would expect this coin to sell at a discount from a 67+

Walkerfan

The spots definitely limit it as far as I’m concerned. It may have a few other ticks on the obverse, as well.