Did PCGS Really grade this 1890-O Morgan MS64?

VamGuy

Now that you've commented on this 1878 in MS65 (especially those defending the grade), offer your opinion on the 1890-O below it.













Edited to add grade & year/mm to title.

DennisH

Looks like a 65 except for the strike, which means it's a 64.

NumisOxide

MS example with a weak strike.

SmallSizedGuy

While I agree the 1878 may not be an MS-65, I don't think the 1890-O is either. The weak strike and the vertical planchet striations on the obverse knock the grade down. I've owned similiar looking 1891-O and 1892-O dollars that were graded MS-63 and MS-64.

AceK

Just to be different, I'm going to say it's a good strike with very light rub on the highlights, thus an AU58. It looks much cleaner than the 78; that could be in part attributable to less harsh lighting.

HighRelief

Nice Luster, I would say the 90-O is MS65

RVDavis

Despite the marks, I think the cheek is very attractive. I say MS 65.

foodude

Hard to grade a pic

Nice Luster PCGS loves luster

rec78

I would say yes - 1890-O's are usually found with a poor strike. I like it and would buy it. The 90-O's dont come much nicer than that one. You will wait a long time to find a nicer one. Sell it to me please.

lonelyp

Is the 1890 a clashed G vam?

dragon

That 1890-O has the typically seen mushy strike. PCGS usually won't give an 1890-O an MS65 with a mushy strike no matter how clean it is. Also, many of the weakly struck 1890-O dollars have unusually nice satiny lustre.

It's not really fair to compare grades on those 2 coins since PCGS grades them to different standards.

hootchiegirl

I w0ould give your 1890-o an au 58 for the grayed breast adn eagles claws

VamGuy

So, the 1890-O is indeed graded MS64. And this is where I completely disagree with the grading of the two coins in question.

Both coins are equally original, equally lustrous, and equally eye-appealing.

The 1878 in MS65 has many, and some major, contact marks in PRIME FOCAL areas of both the obv & rev. This coin, in my opinion, is not an MS65 coin.

The 1890-O in MS64 has very few contact marks, and none major, in the prime focal areas. The coin does have a weak strike. No question. But the 1890-O "typically" comes weakly struck. It was weakly struck the very second it left the press. It is much closer to its original mint state condition than the 1878.

So the 1878 does not lose a point for getting beat up post mint, but the 1890-O does lose a point for no other reason than being in the exact same condition it was in when it was originally struck. Seems a bit contradictory to me.



<< <i>It's not really fair to compare grades on those 2 coins since PCGS grades them to different standards. >>

If this is the case, shouldn't PCGS, or any grading company for that matter, disclose their "grading standards" for each and every year & mint?


Of course, this is all just my personal opinion, your mileage may vary.

ziggy29

I like it as a 64. It has 65 surfaces but knocked down a point by strike.

Russ

Are those multiple vertical lines appearing on Miss Liberty's cheek of the 1890-O on the holder or the coin?

Russ, NCNE

ziggy29

<< <i>So the 1878 does not lose a point for getting beat up post mint, but the 1890-O does lose a point for no other reason than being in the exact same condition it was in when it was originally struck. Seems a bit contradictory to me. >>

In terms of purely *technical* grading, the '90-O would grade higher than the '78. The '90-O looks more like it did the day it left the Mint, presumably, and has fewer post-mint blemishes. No doubt about it.

But I also think it's clear by now that for the TPGs, technical grade only goes so far. Market grading seems to rule the day, and that means penalties for weak strikes (and choice AU coins being graded 61 or 62).

And it's also clear that the TPGs tend to be too conservative for "condition rarity" Morgans. Any chance this '90-O had of being graded 65, even with the strike, went out the window when you look at the pop reports and the PCGS price guide ($350 in 64, $1650 in 65). I would agree that the TPGs should NOT grade a coin differently because it's a condition rarity instead of a common (this might make 65 as an '84-O or '85-O for example, even with the typical O-mint strike), but they unquestionable do.

So this coin has two TPG-induced market factors going against it: the strike and the condition rarity status.

pbfloyd

that should be 65 IMO the year and mint mark should forgive the weak strike. That is "market grade" gone bad!

ziggy29

<< <i>It's not really fair to compare grades on those 2 coins since PCGS grades them to different standards. >>

True. But it is fair to ask WHY they grade two coins of the same type to different standards, and why they routinely downgrade a coin that's a condition rarity when compared to essentially the exact same quality coin which is more common in higher grades.

dragon

<<< If this is the case, shouldn't PCGS, or any grading company for that matter, disclose their "grading standards" for each and every year & mint? >>>


I really dunno, but anyone who's been around PCGS graded Morgans long enough knows that they grade different dates to different standards.

As far as the 1890-O as a date, PCGS will sooner give one an MS65 with somewhat scruffy surfaces as long as it has an unusually strong strike on the eagles breast and leg feathers and hairline......on the other hand, they will almost never give the typically softly struck coin a 65 no matter how clean and lusterous it is. I've owned several killer 1890-Os that were borderline 66s and graded 64 because of the strike only.

dragon

Now as far as that 1878 7TF, dunno what to tell you there, that one is just plain an overgraded dog IMO, and you you probably find a better coin in a 64 holder if you look around.

Steve27

This is the type of Morgan I like to buy. Minimal hits, but a weak strike, which will stop it from grading above 64 at PCGS.

ER

As a collector, why care what grade the slab says? I, the consumer, will decide what the grade will be, i.e., I would never pay 65 money for that 1878, and would have no problem paying 65 money for the 1890-O. But, that's just me.

Frankcoins

Disqualified from a 65 due to the damage on the word "OF"

dragon

<< <i>Disqualified from a 65 due to the damage on the word "OF" >>





Nope, other issues aside, that piece could easily be a 65+ with the ticks on "OF".

RVDavis

<< <i>Now as far as that 1878 7TF, dunno what to tell you there, that one is just plain an overgraded dog IMO, and you you probably find a better coin in a 64 holder if you look around. >>



I have a bunch of Morgans in 1878 that look better than that 65. Only a couple of dozen are in MS 65 slabs, the rest are primarily 63. Maybe I should package them all and send them PCGS and make some real money.

ziggy29

<< <i>I have a bunch of Morgans in 1878 that look better than that 65. Only a couple of dozen are in MS 65 slabs, the rest are primarily 63. Maybe I should package them all and send them PCGS and make some real money. >>

As tight as they are today, I think that window of opportunity has closed.

dragon

<< <i>

<< <i> I have a bunch of Morgans in 1878 that look better than that 65. Only a couple of dozen are in MS 65 slabs, the rest are primarily 63. Maybe I should package them all and send them PCGS and make some real money. >>





Nah, you're not likely to get a gift like that one, LOLOL

Coxe

As weak as the strike might look to most folks, it is not bad at all for the issue. The stars to the right of the date are often so flat they appear to have been chipped off with a chisel. Central weakness is par for the course and this is moderate for the date. 1890 through 1892 New Orleans dollars are the most notoriously and consistently poorly struck coins in the Morgan series. Marks are not bad, most being well outside the primary and secondary focal areas. There is roughness due to die fatigue but that cannot be factored into the grade at all. This is an MS65 -- not an MS67 -- and looks the part and is a nice example of the date.

VamGuy

<< <i>Are those multiple vertical lines appearing on Miss Liberty's cheek of the 1890-O on the holder or the coin?

Russ, NCNE >>

Since I don't have the coin in hand, I can't provide a factual reply. In my opinion, those look like planchet striations which are common on weakly struck Morgans.

segoja

AU58???

Sell me all your AU58's that look like that...all day long.

65 hands down.

Myqqy

I think the whole notion of grading different dates and MM's to different standards is completely lame, as well as market grading gone wild. I think the 90-O is a 65 all day long, even with the slightly weak strike....