Based on the pics, you see any reasons why this 1894 Morgan is not a MS65? (Not mine, nor do I know

ER

Man, this is tight grading. This is in a new holder, too, not your OGH. Ya think the grader(s) were thinking, "We're not gonna make you rich."? (Note the price jump from 64 to 65)

ER

It looks even better than many in 66 holders.

billboat

From the photos it looks much better than a 65, more like a 68--but that's from the photos--in hand you might see why--that said, a beautiful Morgan.

BlindedByEgo

<< <i>Man, this is tight grading. This is in a new holder, too, not your OGH. Ya think the grader(s) were thinking, "We're not gonna make you rich."? (Note the price jump from 64 to 65) >>



I think you hit the nail on the head. Sure is the nicest 64 I've seen in a current holder... Now imagine if it were in a 65 holder (or 66) and the carbon spot on the reverse started spreading like a cancer... Future buyback?

Steve27

If that coin in-hand looks anything like the pics; it's at least a 65.

Bochiman

If it, in hand, looks anything like the pics, then most people on here in a "guess the grade" would put it at MS66 I think

jdcheers

The image was taken using diffused light. Here is your explanation... http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=398923&STARTPAGE=1

ER

Hey, thanks Eric.

Bochiman

Ah ha! Good bring up!
btw ER.....I doubt that is Eric (too obvious )....besides Eric has been reborn or at Thiggy's place

majorbigtime

<< <i>Ah ha! Good bring up!
btw ER.....I doubt that is Eric (too obvious )....besides Eric has been reborn or at Thiggy's place >>



The Devil man wa banned for improper behavior--and should stay banned IMO.

Coxe

Totally irresponsible. If it is as nice as it looks, it should have been resubmitted a dozen times to upgrade and even do an upgrade crossover a few times to NGC if necessary. There is a serious $$$ differential here.

Bochiman

<< <i>

<< <i>Ah ha! Good bring up!
btw ER.....I doubt that is Eric (too obvious )....besides Eric has been reborn or at Thiggy's place >>



The Devil man wa banned for improper behavior--and should stay banned IMO. >>




blah blah blah....you should be banned for stupidity, too bad you haven't been

cohodk

It probably has a few hairlines which are not evident in the photo.

jdcheers

Eric???
Don't know him. Regardless, rest assured I am not Eric, but just a humble collector who finds himself stumbling with learning to take coin images and remembers coming across the aforementioned link

Sunnywood

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that this coin has not already been tried MANY MANY times for a 65. There is undoubtedly some limiting factor that we are not seeing.

Sunnywood

D

It's a 64.

As stated before, with the price increase from 64-65 it would've been resubmitted MANY times if people thought it was really a 65. The images do the coin considerably better than it really is, if you zoom in you can start to see some hairlines.

-Daniel

robertpr

Heritage's internet images are worthless especially now that they have changed to the new uber-flattering photography they are now using. I'll bet I can send the most pockmarked MS60 POS to them and they could make it look like a 68 in their images.

techeff

The strike is a bit weak.

MORGANHUNTER2

sweet Morgan for a start of 11K.

last one sold for 9+change.

bhartman35

Is this sort of photography beneficial to sellers? I'm just starting out taking coin pics, but I've been operating under the assumption that the idea is to show the coin as it really is, because if I was buying it, I'd want the best look at it I could get beforehand. Pictures like this, if they actually sell coins, seem to shoot that theory out of the water. What do you think?

deansmint

Strike looks fine for a 65+, coin looks dull and probably lifeless in hand. Face looks smooth from "cabinet friction" almost as it has been thumbed. Im going to go against the grain and say this coin is actually on the low end for a 64.

morgannut2

First of all, both NGC and PCGS grade this date/MM very tough. If the luster was OK, if it was an 1885CC for example, it might go MS66. But the 1894 tends to have marks hidden in the hair and weak high point definition, sometimes are overly dipped, and of coarse this one could have a paper thin slide mark on the cheek you can't see (given the rub). And there is also a good $ jump from MS63 to MS 64, and you can find some really nice 63's that look like a MS64 too. Some of the choice MS63's and even MS62's seem a bargin compared to the Au-55/8's that have doubled in price in the last 2 years IMHO.

BAJJERFAN

If it had ANY shot at 65 JH woulda had it done in jig time. Used to be that Heritage coins were better in hand than you would expect from their scans/pix. Don't know if this is still true or not.

marmac

BAJJERFAN If it had ANY shot at 65 JH woulda had it done in jig time. Used to be that Heritage coins were better in hand than you would expect from their scans/pix. Don't know if this is still true or not.

Hit the nail on the head. It has been tried or there is some limiting factor not apparent in the photo. The new fangled pictures at Heritage make everything look "gem"..... if it was "gem", I certainly would think Mr. Crackout would have cracked!

BillJones

The only fault I can find with the coin is in the face of Ms. Liberty. Although her cheek is really smooth, I detect a dullness that runs from her jawbone to her forhead south to north and from the back of her cheek to her nose and mouth east and west east to west. My guess is the coin was stored tight in a box in an envelope for a long time, got some toning and perhaps cabinet friction there and was dipped out. The coin does have a couple of "carbon" (black) spots in the reverse that might indicate dipping.

But yes, mark-wise it looks like an MS-67 and if it were a more common date, it would have gotten at least an MS-65.

The trouble is were that is a BIG price jump for ONE grading point, the services often get conservative. In the this case Gray Sheet bid in MS-64 is $9,250.00. In MS-65 it jumps to $34,000. If the coin for the reasons that I mentioned would not market well at the MS-65 price level, it could come back to be a problem for PCGS. Therefore you see the lower grade.

ziggy29

<< <i>(Note the price jump from 64 to 65) >>

You just answered your own question.

Rollerman

Some have mentioned the jump in price between a MS64 and a MS65. Should that even be a consideration when grading a coin? Shouldn't it be judged on it's own merits and the value be damned?

Oh, and the very useful thread accredited to Eric Tillery concerning the use of diffused light, reminds me that I miss him on this forum. He brought a lot of expertise and some awsome pic's to this place IMHO.
Best wishes,
Pete

ziggy29

<< <i>Some have mentioned the jump in price between a MS64 and a MS65. Should that even be a consideration when grading a coin? Shouldn't it be judged on it's own merits and the value be damned? >>

Should it be a consideration? Absolutely not. But given that these are businesses offering some guarantees on their coins? It's inevitable.

TPGs -- at least the ones which stand behind their grades with guarantees -- have a conflict of interest when it comes to giving condition rarities the grades they deserve.

lava

<< <i>Is this sort of photography beneficial to sellers? I'm just starting out taking coin pics, but I've been operating under the assumption that the idea is to show the coin as it really is, because if I was buying it, I'd want the best look at it I could get beforehand. Pictures like this, if they actually sell coins, seem to shoot that theory out of the water. What do you think? >>



A very astute observation. I agree. Photography should try and give the most accurate depiction of what the coin looks like in hand, and Heritage's images no longer do that, which is very disappointing for anyone trying to discriminate between coins.

bhartman35

If you darken the image enough (through their interface) and zoom in, you can start to see the defects in the coin.

1) Ms. Liberty has a nick on her cheek and something going on underneath her eye.
2) At the very tip of the bottom of her neck, there's a nick.
3) There's another nick over her eye.
4) On the reverse, there's some raised metal between the eagle's neck and the left (the eagle's left) wing.
5) The eagle's legs are lacking in detail, as are the eagle's tail feathers above where the branch and the arrow intersect. I can't tell if that's wear or a weak strike, but it's not good.

I made all these comparisons using a coin that ANACS graded MS-64 (and actually, I think ANACS might have been generous with my coin, because when the light reflects off of it, you can see some smoothness above the ear.)

BAJJERFAN

<< Some have mentioned the jump in price between a MS64 and a MS65. Should that even be a consideration when grading a coin? Shouldn't it be judged on it's own merits and the value be damned? >>

The only consideration I think is that a TPG would want to be sure that the coin is solid for the grade when big dollars are involved. While PCGS might be the sole arbiter on a grading submission, if the owner of the coin decides to drag it into court things could get dicey and pricey.

IrishMike

It's hit and miss with their photos.Best $90 I have spent in this hobby is to purchase a copy of Adobe Photoshop elements for $90. I messsed with this photo for 30 seconds and the nick above her eye is way more obvious. All I did was autocorrect and lighten shadows.

BillJones

You photo shows what I thought might be there, Irish Mike, evidence of a rub or dulling on the face. That's why the coin is only graded MS-64.


<< Some have mentioned the jump in price between a MS64 and a MS65. Should that even be a consideration when grading a coin? Shouldn't it be judged on it's own merits and the value be damned? >>

I see "down grading" or conservative grading all the time for this reason. It's very much a part of the market, which translates from TPG practices. It's one of the reasons why type collectors get hosed when it comes to forming type sets. A prime example is the $10 Indian gold piece. The 1926 and 1932 coins, which are the most common dates, get overgraded almost as a matter of course. That's why the smart type collector buys a common date in the 1909 to 1914 era to get properly graded coin. It costs a little more, but the results are worth it for the true collector who wants a properly graded coin.

ziggy29

<< <i>A prime example is the $10 Indian gold piece. The 1926 and 1932 coins, which are the most common dates, get overgraded almost as a matter of course. >>

I'd love to get a certified AU-58 1932 Eagle for my type set, largely because there are so few of them because 99.9% of them are mint state. I've never seen one, though.

cointagious

I viewed the lots in person. My notes show that the next lot (1220) was the better of the two and the bidding reflects this.

Coinhusker1

Who the hell can even guess what that coin will grade? The new Heritage pics flood so much light on the surface, it covers up even heavy marks, making it impossible to estimate a grade. The old crappy scans were better.

DMWJR

I think you guys are missing the obvious. This coin is WAY too clean.

IrishMike

Regardless of our speculation it didn't hit its reserve of $11K. The market spoke. I remember a few years back I won an 80-S 67 PL for $800 something from B&M, I picked up the phone to call them because I couldn't believe it was the same coin. I dumped it right away. That was my first lesson in buying Morgans from an auction house online.

BAJJERFAN

I have never been real happy with any of the coins I ever bought thru B&M auctions. Don't know if I still have any left from the ones I did buy.

ER

Did not meet reserve, did not sell. You think maybe something's wrong with it?

Coinhusker1

<< <i>Did not meet reserve, did not sell. You think maybe something's wrong with it? >>



Only someone who saw the coin in person might be able to shed some light on this.