Look what came in the mail from PCGS today......1884-CC DMPL

Oney

I had sent this in to PCGS for what I hoped to be a 1884-CC MS64 DMPL. It came back MS63 DMPL. What do you think? Did PCGS get it right? I was thinking about cracking it out and trying one more time. The first set of pictures are taken with my new camera. The secon set were the old photos I had posted. What a difference.

K6AZ

As I said in the other thread about this coin, I really think you were robbed.

That a nice image on the top. Are you using the same lighting and setup that you did with the Kodak?

Oney

Yes the lighting set up is the same. Three lamps with GE reveals. One directly over head and the other two angled off to each side.

ChuckC

I don't even collect Morgans, but I've seen enough Morgan threads here to say that yours looks 64. I'm guessing PCGS found the obverse devices a little too busy for 64 plus there seems to be some weakness in the top portion of liberty's hair.

Stuart

Brian: First of all that is a very beautiful 1884-CC DMPL Morgan Dollar. I'm glad that you got the DMPL designation on it.

Secondly, although I agree that it's a shot 64-DMPL coin (perhaps a liner 63/64), however I wouldn't bother resubmitting it unless you plan on selling it soon. It's the same pretty DMPL Morgan whether its in a 63 or 64 holder. The frost breaks on the eagle may have dropped it from 64 to 63, in combination with the contact marks on the cheek and eyebrow area.

I just posted the following coin thread tonight, which a dealer resubmitted as an MS-63 DMPL hoping to get an upgrade to 64-DMPL, and to his surprise received a designation downgrade to MS-63 PL.

1882-CC PCGS MS-63 PL (Was DMPL) Morgan Dollar


The obverse of your coin is far nicer than this MS-63, and possibly deserving of MS-64.

K6AZ

<< <i>Yes the lighting set up is the same. Three lamps with GE reveals. One directly over head and the other two angled off to each side. >>



Brian, have you seen the threads about the new Sylvania daylight bulbs? The Reveals are better than ordinary bulbs, but do give off a slight red cast. I switched from the Reveals to the Sylvania bulbs a couple of weeks ago and have been very happy with them.

Oney

No K6AZ, I have not seen those other threads. Thanks for the information. I wil get a set and try them out. Always willing to improve the show part of 'Show and Tell'...

K6AZ

They make a big difference Brian. Are there any Lowe's stores near you? They are only being sold through Lowe's and a few other smaller hardware stores.

Louis76

Is it just me or is PCGS becoming more stringent in their grading? I have older examples of MS63 coins that I would put the coins I've sent them up against any day but they came back as a 62. Also, I sent in a BEAUTIFUL die-clash 1879 O that they sent back as a 62, I realize the coin wasn't a 65, but it was WELL beyond a 62. Another coin I sent in, a DMPL 1879 O, came back as only a PL and you could see your own face in the fields PLAINLY at two feet away. So, I guess my question is, are they being a little to rough on morgans now only because the market has revived and they're afraid of dropping values?

K6AZ

I don't know what the story is, but calling that coin a 63 is a joke. And the light Brian is using exaggerate contact marks.

Oney

Yes, about 15 miles away. I am picking up two new coins definately on Saturday and perhaps a third. I will try out on them. These coins are a Morgan 1880-CC MS64+ and an 1882 MS66. Both raw, but good pictures and sound advice from the board and perhaps off they go to PCGS. The possible 3rd coin is one I can not let my wife know about, 1892-CC MS63+. I have to see how it goes on that one.

Stuart

Brian: The 1880-CC and the 1892-CC are expensive coins to be purchasing raw. I hope that you are getting them at a market discount to CDN prices for assuming the risk of having them graded.

Oney

The 80-CC is about $700. The 82 I think will go 65-66. I am only paying $60 for that one. The 92-CC has a couple of marks on the cheek that make it a borderline grade. The dealer wants $2K. I do not know on that one yet. He has had many inquiries on it but I have asked him to hold until I make up my mind. I am also looking to trade a couple of other coins in for it as well.

K6AZ

Stuart, I would gladly buy those dates raw at greysheet prices, providing they met the grade. There is no danger in buying them raw as long as you know how to grade, or the dealer is someone you can really trust.

Louis76

When I get that PL back in the mail, I'll post pictures of it so I can get some other people's opinions. I really like what PCGS has done with the industry, but if they're going to turn capricious and change grading standards I need to find somewhere else to have mine certified. I like to think that I grade coins fairly conservatively and I don't contest it when they say a coin has altered surfaces. But, it just seems to me, that if you broke out what's a 64 in a second generation green holder and sent it in, it woud probably come back as a 62 or a 63. Once again, appreciate any input.

Stuart

Eric: I agree with you that there is no danger in purchasing expensive PL/DMPL Morgans raw, however there is always some grading submission risk for which I personally feel that a purchaser should try to purchase for a significant discount to market value.

Brian's beautiful 1884-CC posted earlier in this thread is an excellent example. We all agree that it's got the eye appeal of an MS-64 DMPL, however it graded only MS-63 DMPL.

My reasoning is that I can purchase most PL/DMPL Morgans at local coin shows in PCGS certified holders at or near Greysheet levels without assuming the grading risk. Now, it is also true that where there is downside risk, there is also upside potential if the coins purchased are undergraded.

I guess that it all depends on how you wish to play the numismatic game, and how comfortable each of us is in investing money in either raw or certified coins. We each have different personal preferences and tolerances for assuming risk.

Coinhusker1

Man, you got hosed. Send it to NGC!

Ryana

I also think it belongs in a 64 holder IF you want to sell it. If you sell it in a 63 holder, I can almost guarantee that somewhere down the line it will end up in a 64 holder.

CalGold

At the risk of sounding like a contrarian, after viewing the image in Photoshop, I suspect that there are more hits to the face of that 84-cc than are obvious from the picture. The egale's breast also appears to lack good feather definition.

Stuart, no offense but that 82-cc could just as well have come back in a 62 holder. It has an awful lot of hits.

The services are notorious for giving a grade point bump but lowering the dmpl designation to pl, and vice versa. It makes the crack out game in dmpls expensive, risky and frustrating.


CG

Stuart

CalGold: No offense taken. I agree with your observation that the image posted of the 1882-CC accentuates the contact marks and makes the coin look worse than it does in person. It's an honest MS-63 PL which looks DMPL to me with mirrors that are very flashy in person, but not accurately depicted in the photo.

That's precisely why I typically select MS-64 PL Morgans which are either high-end for their grade or liner coins, with nearly the look of an MS-65 DMPL at about 15-20% above a standard MS-64 price. This coin was an exception to my rule because it was formerly graded MS-63 DMPL, and then downgraded to MS-63 PL. I was thus able to purchase it for 2/3 of MS-63 DMPL money.