What is this PCGS MS67 1885-CC Lacking----?

ABC123

Specifically, what does this eBay # 8428079075, 1885-CC lack which keeps it from grading MS 68 ?

CarsonCityGold

link

Bruceswar

a touch of weakness in the hair strike wise, and on the reverse a luster break thats fairly noticable

lasvegasteddy

just curious if those die break on rev "united" holds grade down in upper tier grades if it is a die break which the photo kinda looks like.btw i'm just a beginner tryin to learn is all and askin

BobaFett72

actually i noticed die breaks on the obverse...is there a 85 CC Vam?

nesvt

<< <i>actually i noticed die breaks on the obverse...is there a 85 CC Vam? >>


I can't tell if they're breaks or just die cracks. From the mint mark, it looks like a VAM 3.

slipgate

That does not look any better than some of my 65's!

ms70

Actually I don't know why it's even a 67.

morgannut2

That's a very nice coin--at least as pictured. The 1885CC is notorious for marks, and PCGS/NGC allow a lot more on this one than other dates. This one looks like a solid 67 for any MM/date Morgan but to answer the question--No to go MS68 it would need at little more pizzaz or something extraordinary.

ziggy29

I don't think the hair above the ear is "hammered" enough for a 68. I'm not sure it's even hammered enough for a 67, but the surfaces are so clean and problem-free that a 67 designation despite that is reasonable.

rhedden

I grade it 65+/66. It has a distracting contact mark in the reverse field, right in a prime focal area. It has numerous marks on Liberty's neck, and light chatter in front of the face. The overall eye appeal is OK for a 66, but not for a 67. It's a really nice dollar, but not a superb gem to me. This coin makes me want to submit all the raw Morgans I have that I grade MS-64.

Rampage

There appears ot be a small amount of haze in the obverse left field. Maybe that keeps it from MS68?

Jcarney

The ding in the neck.

eagle7

If that coin was an 1885 instead of an 1885 CC, my best guess is that it would be in a PCGS 66 holder. I dont see any thing deserving of a 68 grade. Maybe the 67 is deserving considering the bagmark problems involving the CC coins and how clean this one is compared to other 1885 CC coins. JMHO.

TwoSides2aCoin

<< <i>That does not look any better than some of my 65's! >>



Pictures show us every single flaw.

First of all, there are enough contact marks on it that it really is a questionable 67. There is a nick in the neck, contact marks along the face and cheek, and in the fields of both obverse and reverse.

I suppose it's luster is soooooooo lovely in hand that the graders could not find any finer examples so it got MS67.

It is lacking a new owner, to answer the thread question
and for those who hate clicking on links:

DennisH

Probably has a ton of blast and eye appeal WOW factor (as is typical for the date), but there are just too many marks and scuffs for a 68... not to mention that at that grade it would be probably be a six-figure coin.

keets

Specifically, what does this eBay # 8428079075, 1885-CC lack which keeps it from grading MS 68 ?

the same thing that keeps it from grading MS66, a consensus opinion by three PCGS graders.

EarlyTypeManJohn

That ding in the neck was the first thing that stood out to me. I suppose if this coin has a lot pizazz in-hand it is worth the 67 designation. If I bought this coin in a 68 holder I'd be really disappointed.

keets

If I bought this coin in a 68 holder I'd be really disappointed.

if you bought this coin in a 68 holder it'd be a while before you were flush, then you'd really be disappointed!!

eyoung429

Exactly what ding are you guys talking about? If you are referring to the impression that is 1/3 of the way up from the tip on the throat....I would like you to find a well struck Morgan that doesn't have it....it's part of the design.

EarlyTypeManJohn

I stand humbly corrected! You’re right about the impression on the neck. Don’t worry Keets, I won’t be spending six figures on a coin anytime soon.

ABC123

I guess it goes to prove---Beauty is truly, in the eyes of the (grader) beholder !

Frankcoins

<< <i>The ding in the neck. >>



That's part of the design. 67 Looks right as far as one can tell from a photo.

labrams

Hi -- how do I learn about VAM's? I know nothing about them right now. Thanks.

lava

<< <i>

<< <i>That does not look any better than some of my 65's! >>



Pictures show us every single flaw.

First of all, there are enough contact marks on it that it really is a questionable 67. There is a nick in the neck, contact marks along the face and cheek, and in the fields of both obverse and reverse.

I suppose it's luster is soooooooo lovely in hand that the graders could not find any finer examples so it got MS67.

It is lacking a new owner, to answer the thread question
and for those who hate clicking on links:


>>



My sentiments exactly. It could easily be in a 66 holder, except of course that PCGS keeps sticking 65s in those (ever look closely at an 1882-cc in 66), and by comparison, this coin I trust has more pop. I would call this a very nice 66, but I am not offended to see it in a 67 holder. No way does it make 68. Side by side you would see that 68s are essentially mark free by comparison.

morgannut2

<< <i>If that coin was an 1885 instead of an 1885 CC, my best guess is that it would be in a PCGS 66 holder. I dont see any thing deserving of a 68 grade. Maybe the 67 is deserving considering the bagmark problems involving the CC coins and how clean this one is compared to other 1885 CC coins. JMHO. >>

-----------
---------------
Those are my thoughts exactly---Basically the scale for 85CC's is shifted up a grade (assuming a clean cheek) because they were all so banged up. I guess they overlook a few abrasions because grades also include strong luster and other factors. A nice 1885 - P would never see higher than a MS66 holder with a similar look. Big difference between 67 and 68--just a couple in either CC or P.