I'm sorry but, there's just NO WAY that this is a 63

razorface1027 · March 20, 2004 10:12PM

LINK

Is this a blatant case of customer preference (PCGS throws a bone every once in a while to high volume customers), or, a grading mistake? No WAY this things a 63!

Coppernicus · March 20, 2004 10:20PM

I agree - an awful lot of marks on the obverse, in prime focal areas to boot! About two weeks ago, I bought an 1881-S graded MS61 in a first generation PCGS holder. It looks far better than this one, and I'm hoping to get a 64 out of it. No big deal, but I'm as sure that the '81-S is undergraded as I am that this one is overgraded.

Mike

KlectorKid · March 20, 2004 10:35PM

I think that it could be MS-63 the fields are relativly clean and the bust although scratched doesnt have any real sevre marks.

Gemini · March 20, 2004 10:38PM

So what do you think it should be?...a 1 a 2 a 3 ?....

(whoops I kinda sound like Lawrence Welk)

boz · March 20, 2004 10:48PM

Looks like a 63 to me. Low end, but saved from 62 by it's luster. A 62, I think wouldn't have the luster this one seems to have.

solid · March 20, 2004 11:07PM

I would reserve judgement until the coin was in hand, but think it could easily be MS63.

The fields look Prooflike or close to it, which tends to magnify tiny marks considerably
when photographing and/or scanning. The marks on the face, while numerous, may
well be very shallow indeed. The coin also looks to be very lusterous.

Then again, I could be wrong!

Ken

razorface1027 · March 20, 2004 11:11PM

So what do you think it should be?...a 1 a 2 a 3 ?....

It's DEFINATELY a 62

braddick · March 20, 2004 11:48PM

<< <i>So what do you think it should be?...a 1 a 2 a 3 ?....

It's DEFINATELY a 62 >>

It looks like ultra strong luster (especially for the date) gave it the bump.

tradedollarnut · March 20, 2004 11:56PM

I wish I could grade off scans as well as some.....

razorface1027 · March 21, 2004 12:17AM

I wish I could grade off scans as well as some

Hey, HEYYYYYYY...I'm justa humble collector trudging my way through the disconcerting realm of numismatics. Yes, I'm a compare guy that doesn't know his arsz from a hole in the ground, but sorry, there's ENTIRELY too much chatter on this coin to be 63

bxb · March 21, 2004 12:19AM

It looks low end 63 to me. This is a date that typically comes baggy, therefore luster and strike are the primary determinants of its grade. Although a picture is not the way to judge a coin, I bet the luster is quite nice on this piece.

Live long and prosper.

BigE · March 21, 2004 12:24AM

Agreed! The obverse is 62, the reverse is 64, so they just averaged it out

-----------------------BigE

roadrunner · March 21, 2004 12:32AM

It's more of a 63 than a 62 to me. I'd have no problem if this were an 1881-s but since it's a key date, I could see where you would hope to get a no questions, solid 63 coin. The marks are fairly discernible (nothing to hide) and do not preclude a 63 grade imo.

roadrunner

MadMarty · March 21, 2004 12:37AM

Oh come on guys, just ask Russ... PCGS is NEVER wrong! If they say it't a MS63 then it's a MS63!

ColonialCoinUnion · March 21, 2004 1:04AM

<< <i>LINK

Is this a blatant case of customer preference (PCGS throws a bone every once in a while to high volume customers), or, a grading mistake? No WAY this things a 63! >>

At first glance, and based on the scan only, I thought it looked like a 63. But lets just say your're right, that it has excess 'chatter' in the fields, then its maybe a 2?

So you're posting here in the forum accusing PCGS of 'blatant customer preference' because you think they overgraded a Morgan by one point?

Thats absurd.

RiffRaff1967 · March 21, 2004 1:27AM

It looks like a 63 to me, and I thought prooflike as well. I have a PCGS MS63PL, and I can tell you that I can take a pic that does not highlight every mark and everyone would think it was a 64, shot at 65. If I took a pic like this auction has, everyone would be thinking it was 62 - 63.

Wolf359 · March 21, 2004 1:28AM

63. Super strike and luster more than qualify it for the grade. Some of those dark areas on the face...are just that and not marks from the photo.

Aethelred · March 21, 2004 1:43AM

Based on the scan, I'd say it is a 2 or 3. Remember that is is very hard to correctly grade coins from photos.

lordmarcovan · March 21, 2004 1:50AM

What he said.

I think it could be 63, but definitely a low-end 63 at best.

rainbowroosie · March 21, 2004 1:53AM

Price listed is $615 in 62 and $975 in 63.......IMHO worth far closer to $600 than $900.....If I sent that coin in, it would not come back to me as a 63...The OBV has way too many marks....buy the coin not the plastic.

BigAl · March 21, 2004 2:09AM

judging by a pic is difficult...but would this wonderfully struck coin qualify as a bone???

what wonderful breast feathers you have!

BurritoGrande · March 21, 2004 2:18AM

I would want to see it in hand. The scuffing on the obverse does seem rather extreme for the grade. Perhaps it is enhanced in some way by the lighting, photography, etcetera. The coin is definitely all there in terms of luster. And the reverse is quite nice, although I don't believe the reverse is weighted as heavily in the grading.

EVillageProwler · March 21, 2004 2:25AM

I have no idea as to its true grade, nor do I care. But, there is one thing I should point out to those who haven't been in this game for too long: you can't assess a grade off a single attribute. A grade is a composite of several attributes, including marks as well as several other factors.

If you ask any grader for any grading service, they would be unable to tell you precisely how many marks make up a certain grade for a certain coin. You simply cannot be counting marks.

Now, maybe this coin is a POS for the assigned grade, and maybe not. But, to those who decry the grade based only on a single attribute is simply grading to their own standards and not to the way it's really done by the TPG's.

BTW, eye appeal and luster (or luster and eye appeal) are the two most important attributes that make up a coin's grade. Then comes marks and strike.

EVP

Russ · March 21, 2004 2:25AM

<< <i>judging by a pic is difficult...but would this wonderfully struck coin qualify as a bone???

what wonderful breast feathers you have! >>

You guys want to see a REAL example of overgrading, click the link Al just provided above. There is no way in hell that coin grades MS66 and, in this case, the images are very large and very clear.

As for the eBay auction linked in this thread, based on the images provided, I see nothing about that coin that would keep it from grading MS63. Some of you seem to think that a 63 should be perfect.

Russ, NCNE

Stuart · March 21, 2004 3:02AM

<< <i>The fields look Prooflike or close to it, which tends to magnify tiny marks considerably >>

Razor: I agree with Solid & Boz on this one. First of all I agree that we can't grad eoff fof scans/Digital Images (per my recent 1898 Proof Morgan Thread). However, if the images are close to the actual look of the coin, I'd say that it's a low-end 63 (what Travers refers to as a Category "C").

I agree that the contact marks on the obverse are more distracting from the typical MS-63, esp. the scratch on the olower jaw by the chin. However, the semi-PL to PL fields and the high luster, cmbined with a strong reverse probably carried a borderline 62/63 up to the 63 grade.

Also since it is a 94-S (which is a tougher date) the grading services will also cut some slack (1/4 point) for the tougher date, which again gave it the benefit of the doubt. I'd pay 63 (bid) money for it. Just my opinion...