Tru view does bad things to TRUE views

ELVIS1

Came back PCGS MS64
Really thought it had a shot at 65

coinbuf

Confusing thread title.

braddick

Lustrous 64.
Do you agree there is too much chatter in the obverse fields and on the cheek to warrant a GEM grade?

gumby1234

I liked it better in the NGC slab.

WaterSport

It's not just Trueview - most coin photos will bring out the worst and best of the coin.

WS

ELVIS1

@braddick said:
Lustrous 64.
Do you agree there is too much chatter in the obverse fields and on the cheek to warrant a GEM grade?

To be honest it's possible that I was putting too much hope into the cheek and the definition above the ear.
But I felt that the breaks in the frost of luster weren't serious enough to preclude a gem grade.
And to be honest, The reverse is all that and a bag of chips..

breakdown

Did you crossover or crack it? Your chance of upgrade in slab from NGC to PC is minuscule. Handsome coin but left obverse field is likely grade-limiting.

ELVIS1

@breakdown said:
Did you crossover or crack it? Your chance of upgrade in slab from NGC to PC is minuscule. Handsome coin but left obverse field is likely grade-limiting.

I cracked it.. Actually I cracked about 8.

marmac

Based on True view, I like the coin in the grade PCGS assigned. A little too much chatter for a 65 imho.

Rc5280

That TV is not a bad TV imo.

The NGC pics are not a True representation of the coin imo.

gumby1234

@marmac said:
Based on True view, I like the coin in the grade PCGS assigned. A little too much chatter for a 65 imho.

So you didn't like the grade that NGC assigned?

braddick

Better to have the nicest MS64 on the block rather than a minimal MS65.

It is a terrific Morgan! I'll trade a bit of chatter for luster any day.

logger7

That's a very expensive experiment. I agree with those who don't see a clean cheek, etc., or a real "gem" coin.

There are just too many fees unless we're talking expensive coins, over $1000 or so, to warrant re-submissions, conservation/regrades, etc.. I've had a couple of these. Between shipping, grading, conservation, etc. there is no economic sense.

marmac

@gumby1234 - well NGC's grade was consistent with PCGS, though the picture of the coin in the NGC slab is not of a quality I would attempt to give a grade to.

gumby1234

@marmac thats somenody taking a bad pic with a cell phone probably.

Aotearoa

@gumby1234 said:
I liked it better in the NGC slab.

I’m pretty sure is the same coin

gumby1234

@Aotearoa said:

@gumby1234 said:
I liked it better in the NGC slab.

I’m pretty sure is the same coin

Yes it is, but I liked it in the NGC slab better.
EDIT to add that the OP would have probably like the money he spent to cross it better as well

ELVIS1

@gumby1234 said:

@Aotearoa said:

@gumby1234 said:
I liked it better in the NGC slab.

I’m pretty sure is the same coin

Yes it is, but I liked it in the NGC slab better.
EDIT to add that the OP would have probably like the money he spent to cross it better as well

I Cracked and used a voucher so no real loss. I bought this and the Walker in the ICG Plastic I posted for $120.00 together.
On the same token I paid $325.00 for the GSA Morgan that came back MS64 DMPL. Used a voucher for the Walker that upgraded a point and a + and paid out of pocket for the GSA. The 2 Accented hair Kennedys I picked years ago for no more than $20.00 and they were vouchers as well.
I didn't really spend that much and the GSA DMPL Pays for all of it plus I think.

Edited to add The Kennedys were from proof sets I cherry picked.

ELVIS1

@marmac said:
Based on True view, I like the coin in the grade PCGS assigned. A little too much chatter for a 65 imho.

You and braddic are probably correct. They say ownership ads a point .

islemangu

The cheek cancels out the slightly more field chatter. That’s a gem

Coins3675

Title?

ChrisH821

64 looks right to me. Nice coin.