Would you agree with PCGS on this Morgan?

K6AZ

This is one of the two coins I had at PCGS, just got back yesterday. Would you agree with the MS64 grade? (By the way stman, yes that's a big honkin' thumbprint on the reverse)

ddbird

1st impression I would say no..unless alot of those marks are exagerated by the photo. They may have bumped it up a point for eye appeal. Nice coin!

CoinOnTheCob

K6AZ, did you think it would grade higher or are you surprised that it did that well. I am leaning toward the latter.

airplanenut

Looks to chattery for a 64

coinkat

Thumb prints do not bother me as much as they may bother others. While I may be a tad more forgiving than others, I will just say that if there was a "benefit of a doubt" in connection with this coin, it was in your favor.

Louis

64 is a big stretch on that one.

ElectricEye

Looks 3 to me.

stman

<< <i>By the way stman, yes that's a big honkin' thumbprint on the reverse) >>



Glad you pointed that out (and confirmed it) for me, as I wouldn't have been sure or noticed it.

Purple73

I think its less than a 64.

Hey Eric--you using that new copy stand for this shot?

lordmarcovan

I'd have 3'ed it, personally. But maybe it's on the cusp, and bumped it for perceived eye appeal, as ddbird said.

lordmarcovan

BTW, I like the glow-eyed kitty icon.

Looks a little like Maisy. But I didn't get the same glow off this shot of her, 'cause she was lookin' away.





(Sorry- strayed OT for a sec.)

K6AZ

<< <i>I think its less than a 64.

Hey Eric--you using that new copy stand for this shot? >>



Yes I am.

A little story on this coin. I bought it a couple of years ago in a NGC MS63 holder. I sold it later, and last year saw it on eBay and bought it back. In my opinion, it was a solid middle of the road 63. I sent it to PCGS along with a nice NGC MS64 81-O that had a turquoise obverse crescent. For reasons known only to PCGS, they bumped this one up to 64, and knocked the 81-O down to 63.

ER

63 max.

K6AZ

<< <i>BTW, I like the glow-eyed kitty icon.

Looks a little like Maisy. But I didn't get the same glow off this shot of her, 'cause she was lookin' away.





(Sorry- strayed OT for a sec.) >>



Thanks, that's a cute cat you have there. The day after icon upload day, and two days after I shot her picture, she was killed by one of the maniacs that drive around here. I posted about it on the open forum.

boz

I wouldn't have guessed a 64.
They must like you

Newmismatist

Max grade MS63 JMHO

Eric very sorry about the kitty - she's a beauty and it's unfortunate that she met an untimely death.

tsacch

yeah, looks like a 64..............nice tarnish

K6AZ

Well, I'm glad to see most agree with me. I really don't like this market grading business. I don't need to get an extra point to tell me the intense crescent rainbow has eye appeal. Technically, this is a 63 all day long, it's obvious they bumped it for the color. What I don't understand is knocking down the 81-O to a 63. I'm wondering if they really made a mistake on these two coins and swapped grades.

Coinhusker1

Eric, if you think they may have swapped the grades then I would try re-submitting the 81-O and see if you get a 64. The price difference makes it worth a shot!

Sorry about the kitty, that's sad.

K6AZ

At this point, I'm not sending any more into PCGS, or any other service for that matter.

Here is the 81-O they graded 63:

K6AZ

<< <i>Sorry Eric but I think they got the 81-o correct at a 63. >>



OK then, what's your opinion on the 84-O they graded 64?

mikebombs

In my inexperienced opinion, the 84 has better eye appeal. (Again imo). The reverse tone and thumb print seem to work in its advantage. And the white surface on the 84 looks smooth. The crescent is really pretty and it distracts the eye from the marks on the cheek. (IMO 62)

The 81 has the opposite effect because it exacerbates the contact on her face. I think the graders could have been more brutal. The 81 has better strike.

Anyway sorry, I feel stupid commenting, because every thing I know I learned from you guys. Thanks.

OT if you knew they would not upgrade, why did you risk it? Did you factor grading and shipping fees?

wam98

Not just yours Eric, I'm seeing some whacky grades posted here lately of rescent submissions. That's a generious grade on the 84 O, IMO.

That"s so sad about your cat.

BigGreek

No, I wouldn't agree that its a 64. But, I have one just like it in
a 64 rattler which I thinked they missed on as well.

anablep

I'd say both are a 63, but since when was eye appeal a factor in grading? That's why I like NGC's star designation. Doesn't bump the grade, but gives notice for eye appeal...

astrorat

It's in a 64 holder due the attractive cresent toning . . . and the hot market for toned coins.

I bet it nevers leaves the holder as unless there is a realistic push to change to a 100 point grading scale, you would need your sanity checked to think it would upgrade.

Seems most folks think it's a 63, I am at 62. But I am less forgiving on coins with that many marks.

Lane

Stuart

Eric: It looks like an MS-63 to me that got a bump up to the next grade for the eye appeal of the pretty crescent toning.

JRocco

Hi Eric, I like both those coins in 63 holders. Love the toning on the 84O and I would bet that is what tipped it into a 4 holder-it shouldn't have, but that is what probably did. Sorry about your pet- I have 3 cats and couldn't imagine dealing with a loss that way.

mgoodm3

I like 63 for it.

LincolnCentMan

Looks awfully 61ish to me... 62ish on a "good day." 64ish on a... well, I dont want to get slambed for liable. But I strongly disagree with 64.

It would be fun to see that one in the world series of grading. lol.

David

wjd283

<< <i>Looks to chattery for a 64 >>




That's what I thought.

ArtR

<< <i> but since when was eye appeal a factor in grading? >>


Since the services started to Market Grade.


<< <i>That's why I like NGC's star designation. Doesn't bump the grade, but gives notice for eye appeal... >>


Both NGC and PCGS will bump the grade for eye appeal

Wolf359

Based on the photos, I agree with PCGS and the grades are correct. But who knows? The 81-O may be worth re-submitting.

mr1931S

My opinion is they are both 63, or choice uncirculated. I don't think any coin should get a point bump in grade from the grading service because of toning colors, no matter how "genuine" or attractive those colors may be.

TheRaven

I would never buy that coin for a 64 price.

I don't think that is a 64, when comparing that to my 64 which I have.

My preferrence is for white morgans so really no interest in that coin anyway.

NumisOxide

Great crescent toning. I agree it looks like a 63. It has nice eye appeal.

morgannut2

It actually looks like another 63 84O that is bumped a grade because there's virtually no value change. Don't expect the same freebes on anything there is a price jump. Pcgs likes to keep you happy on you other submissions that didn't upgrade IMHO. Gee thanks!

K6AZ

<< <i>Looks awfully 61ish to me... 62ish on a "good day." 64ish on a... well, I dont want to get slambed for liable. But I strongly disagree with 64.

It would be fun to see that one in the world series of grading. lol.

David >>



It would be fun to see YOU in the world series of grading. 61? You're out of your mind.

darktone

You know if I saw that coin in a 61-62 holder you would get no arguement from me...........................